G.R. No. L-22733; September 25, 1968.
SALVADOR BENEDICTO (deceased). ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE A. HERAS, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action filed by respondent Vicente A. Heras to recover a portion of land allegedly enclosed by petitioner Salvador Benedicto and to demand the reopening of an easement of way. The adjoining properties of Heras and Benedicto originally belonged to a single owner, Miriam R. Hedrick. On September 29, 1917, Hedrick sold a portion (Lots 8, 9, 22, and 23) to Claro M. Recto, retaining Lots 10 and 24. The deed of sale (Escritura de Compra-Venta) stipulated two key conditions: (1) there existed a vehicular passageway about three to four meters wide, constituted by equal parts over each of the two properties, which both parties obligated themselves and their successors to respect for all time and all needs; and (2) they agreed to conduct a new survey to fix the dividing line in the middle of this passageway, perpendicular to San Marcelino Street. This agreement was annotated on the subsequent titles of both properties.
Recto obtained a separate title (TCT No. 7755) in 1917. He later filed motions for a new survey to implement the dividing line stipulation but withdrew them in 1922 after a report from the Chief Surveyor indicated the proposed survey plan did not agree with the deed’s terms and that his existing title was in accord. Meanwhile, Hedrick’s retained property (Lots 10 & 24) was issued a new title (TCT No. 22760) based on a cadastral survey, which showed an increased area.
The property sold to Recto was eventually transferred to Salvador Benedicto. Hedrick’s retained property was eventually transferred to Vicente A. Heras. In 1941, Heras demolished the building on his property. The trial court found that the passageway was located entirely within Benedicto’s property, not equally between the two as originally stipulated, and that Heras’s property area had not been encroached upon. It ordered both parties to contribute equally to maintaining a passageway between their properties with the property line at its middle, rejecting Benedicto’s claim of extinguishment by nonuser. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the easement of way, as stipulated in the original deed of sale and annotated on the titles, continues to exist and must be respected despite its alleged location entirely within Benedicto’s property and claims of nonuser or extinguishment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The easement of way is perpetual in character as expressly stipulated in the deed (“para todo el tiempo y todas las necesidades”) and was annotated on all transfer certificates of title in the chains of both parties. There is no record of any mutual agreement between any predecessors-in-interest or the parties themselves to discontinue or obliterate the easement. Therefore, its continued existence must be upheld.
The Court rejected the claim of extinguishment by nonuser. The easement, being continuous and apparent, is not extinguished by mere nonuser under Article 631 of the Civil Code, and the prescriptive period had not elapsed. No presumptive renunciation by Heras could be inferred, as his demolition of the old house was to construct an apartment building, creating an obvious need for the vehicular passageway to the rear portion.
Furthermore, the fact that the easement may also qualify as one of necessity does not detract from its permanency as a property right established by grant, which survives the termination of the necessity. The parties unequivocally made provisions for its observance by all future successors, which is why it was annotated on the titles.