G.R. No. 90596 ; April 8, 1991
SOLID MANILA CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. BIO HONG TRADING CO., INC. and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Solid Manila Corporation owns land adjacent to property owned by private respondent Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. The private respondent’s title originated from a prior owner, and the deed of sale expressly reserved a portion of the land as a private alley for the benefit of neighboring estates. This reservation was annotated on the title, imposing conditions that the alley remain open, unobstructed, and for public use. The petitioner, among other residents, had historically used and maintained this alley.
In 1983, the private respondent constructed steel gates, obstructing access. The petitioner filed an action for injunction. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction and later rendered a summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, making the injunction permanent. The private respondent appealed, arguing the summary judgment was improper and that the easement had been extinguished by merger when it acquired the servient estate. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, accepting the defense of merger.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the easement was extinguished by merger.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the trial court’s judgment. On the first issue, summary judgment was proper. A summary judgment is appropriate when, based on the pleadings and admissions, no genuine issue of material fact exists. The private respondent’s answer, while raising defenses like merger and the existence of another adequate outlet, failed to tender any genuine factual controversy. Its defenses were grounded on legal conclusions, not disputed facts, which did not preclude summary adjudication.
On the second issue, the easement was not extinguished by merger. Merger under Article 631 of the Civil Code requires the ownership of both the dominant and servient estates to be consolidated in the same person. Here, the dominant estate (petitioner’s property) and the servient estate (private respondent’s property) were owned by different entities; thus, no merger occurred. Critically, the deed of sale to the private respondent and the annotated title conditions explicitly constituted and preserved the easement. The annotation created a real burden on the land, binding upon successive owners. The private respondent acquired the property subject to this encumbrance and could not unilaterally extinguish it. The Court emphasized that the easement was established for public use, benefiting multiple estates, and its continued existence was clearly intended by the original parties and inscribed in the land title.