G.R. No. 97039 April 24, 1992
CONCORDIO ABELLANA, SR., PEDRO E. MENDEZ, VERANO BADANA, CONCORDIO ABELLANA, JR., TEODOLFO ABELLANA, MUSSULINI BUCAO, REMEDIOS GARCIANO, ALFREDO SY, JUANITO JABELLANA, CATALINO LABANDERO, PURISIMO JABELLANA, ANDRES LASTIMOSA, LUCRESIA VDS. DE BENTE, PAULA VDA. DE BACUS, ARTURO JABELLANA, FLORENTINO LARIOSA, LEODY DE LA PEÑA, PELAGIA JABELLANA, FE GOCELA, SEVERINO QUINAMADA and NARCISA LASTIMOSA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ORLANDO P. NAYA, ROSENDO ESTOYE, JR. and the MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF TALISAY, CEBU, represented by the Mayor and Members of the Sanguniang Bayan, respondents. APOLINARIO ENGUIO, RICO VILLARIN, MARIA ROSARIO BALBUENA, JOSE TIROL, ASUNCION DE LA PEÑA, ROGELIO B. GUYOT, LEONIZA FAUSTINO, MAMERTO ZAMORAS, ANTONIO CAL, VICENTE ALMENDRAS, MICHAEL SERRANO, EDUARDO PADERNOS, MA. LUZ SANCHEZ, R. CABARERO, OSCAR NAPOLI and ROBERTO BUENO, intervenors.

FACTS

Petitioners, residents of a parcel of land abutting the Nonoc Homes Subdivision, filed a suit to establish an easement of right of way over a subdivision road. They claimed this road used to be a footpath they and their ancestors had used since time immemorial, thereby acquiring an easement through prescription. The construction of a wall around the subdivision deprived them of using this road, which provides access to a public highway. They sought the removal of the walls and the opening of the road. Private respondents denied the existence of a pre-existing footpath and asserted there was a more direct route from petitioners’ land to the public highway. The trial court ordered the demolition of the fences at the dead ends of Road Lots 1 and 3. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding the essential requisites for an easement of right of way were not present. It held the road lots were private property and suggested the municipal government could institute expropriation if needed. The appellate court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the easement claimed is a legal easement established by law and acquired by title under the Civil Code and P.D. No. 957.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the footpaths and subdivision roads acquired the status of public streets under municipal ordinances.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not determining the legality of the closure of the dead ends of the subdivision road lots.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It found the petition raised factual issues not reviewable under Rule 45. The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the complaint, as the requisite conditions for an easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code did not exist. A right of way is not a continuous easement and is not acquirable by prescription. Section 29 of P.D. 957 applies to subdivision owners or developers, not to petitioners. The municipal ordinances cited do not grant outsiders a right to open subdivision walls; they allow use of roads within the subdivision but require entry through open ends linking to public roads. The closure of the dead ends was a valid exercise of proprietary rights for security, and the public was not denied use of the roads, provided entry was through the proper points connecting to public roads.