G.R. No. L-33423 December 22, 1971
TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, DR. TRINO MONTINOLA, ESTATE OF BERNARDINO (RODOLFO) JALANDONI, SALVADOR LACSON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. (the Central) operated a sugar mill in Negros Occidental since 1920. Coinciding with its start of operations, it entered into identical 50-year milling contracts with sugarcane planters, including the respondent landowners. These contracts granted the Central a contractual right to construct and maintain railroad lines across the planters’ properties to haul sugarcane to its mill. This contractual easement was set to expire at the end of the 1969-1970 crop year. As the expiration approached, the respondent landowners refused to extend the right of way. The Central filed a complaint seeking to convert the expiring contractual easement into a legal easement of right of way under the Civil Code and obtained preliminary injunctions from the respondent Court of First Instance to maintain railway operations. However, the court later dissolved these injunctions, prompting the Central to file this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the writs of preliminary injunction that allowed the Central to continue its railway operations over the landowners’ properties pending litigation on the establishment of a legal easement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The denial of the preliminary injunction was justified. The Central’s right to a legal easement was not clear and unmistakable, a prerequisite for the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction. To establish a legal easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, the dominant estate (the Central) must prove: (1) its isolation, with no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; and (3) that the isolation is not due to its own acts. The Court found the Central failed to clearly establish these requisites. Its complaint did not even include a prayer for the court to fix the indemnity due to the landowners, which is essential. Furthermore, the Central was guilty of laches, having waited until the final months of the 50-year period to seek the easement’s continuation, thus disentitling it to equitable relief. The Court also emphasized that the specific railroad route used under the old contracts is not necessarily the route a court would mandate for a legal servitude, which must be the shortest and least prejudicial to the servient estates. The Central made no attempt to negotiate such a route. Consequently, following precedents like Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Capitol Subdivision, Inc., the Supreme Court denied the petition, dissolved its own preliminary injunction issued earlier, and made permanent its order halting the restoration of dismantled tracks at the landowners’ expense.