G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955
AMADO BERNARDO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH DIVISION, JUANA DEL ROSARIO, SIXTA DEL ROSARIO and PEDRO DE JESUS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amado Bernardo and respondents Juana del Rosario, Sixta del Rosario, and Pedro de Jesus own adjoining lots in the Toro-Lolomboy Estate. Bernardo’s lot (119-B) is interior and lacks direct access to a barrio road or provincial highway. For many years, Bernardo used a foot-path crossing the respondents’ lots (117, 27, and 28-A) to reach the barrio road. Due to a misunderstanding, respondent de Jesus erected a fence across the path. Bernardo filed an action to establish a legal right of way (2 meters wide, 70 meters long) for his jeep, offering to pay damages. The respondents admitted the existence and past use of the foot-path but objected to a formal road, claiming it would cause damage. The parties entered into a written, notarized agreement to settle the case. The trial court rendered a judgment approving the agreement. Under clause 4, Juana, for P100, granted Bernardo a right of way over her lot (119-A) toward the provincial highway. Under clause 5, Juana, Sixta, and Pedro de Jesus agreed to “allow and tolerate” Bernardo to pass by foot through their respective lots “as in the past he had been so doing,” with Pedro de Jesus further allowing Bernardo to place stones or gravel on his lot. After the judgment became final, Bernardo sought to annotate it on the respondents’ certificates of title. Juana, Sixta, and Pedro de Jesus refused to surrender their duplicate titles for lots 117, 27, and 28-A. The trial court denied Bernardo’s motion to compel delivery, interpreting clause 5 as a mere tolerance, not an easement. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Bernardo appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the agreement, as embodied in the court’s judgment, created a registrable real right (easement of right of way) in favor of Bernardo over the foot-path across lots 117, 27, and 28-A, entitling him to annotate the judgment on the corresponding certificates of title.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. The agreement, based on a compromise to prevent the establishment of a formal road, granted Bernardo a right to continue using the foot-path. This was not a mere act of liberality or tolerance but was based on consideration (foregoing the claim for a wider road). The promise bound the respondents as parties to the agreement and judgment. However, to bind subsequent owners (vendees or assignees) of the lots, the right must be registered and annotated on the certificates of title as a charge on the properties under Sections 50 and 52 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). The Court distinguished the case from Archbishop of Manila vs. Roxas, as the right here arose from a formal agreement, not from mere passive tolerance. The trial court was directed to grant Bernardo’s motion and compel the respondents to deliver their duplicate certificates of title for annotation.