Scribd
Upload
113 views1 page

619-Valdez Vs Tabisula

Valdez purchased a portion of Tabisula's property, with the deed stipulating Valdez would have a 2.5m road right-of-way on the western side. However, Tabisula later built a wall blocking access. Valdez sued for specific performance. The court ruled against Valdez for the following reasons: (1) the deed language suggested the right-of-way was not included in the sale and required a separate agreement; (2) Valdez already had access to public roads through two other properties they owned; and (3) a creek now provided another access point. Valdez did not meet the legal requirements for a compulsory easement under Civil Code articles 649-650.

Uploaded by

001noone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
113 views1 page

619-Valdez Vs Tabisula

Valdez purchased a portion of Tabisula's property, with the deed stipulating Valdez would have a 2.5m road right-of-way on the western side. However, Tabisula later built a wall blocking access. Valdez sued for specific performance. The court ruled against Valdez for the following reasons: (1) the deed language suggested the right-of-way was not included in the sale and required a separate agreement; (2) Valdez already had access to public roads through two other properties they owned; and (3) a creek now provided another access point. Valdez did not meet the legal requirements for a compulsory easement under Civil Code articles 649-650.

Uploaded by

001noone
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

Different Kinds of Easements (Articles 613-619) proper indemnity must be paid; (3) the isolation is not the result

) the isolation is not the result of the owner


of the dominant estate’s own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is at the point
Valdez vs Tabisula least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to the extent consistent with
the foregoing rule, the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
Facts: Valdez purchased from Tabisula the 200 sqm east portion of their 380 may be the shortest. The burden of proving the existence of these
sqm parcel of land. The residential lot was bounded by parcels of land on prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate, Valdez.
the north, east and west, while bounded by a creek on the south.

On the Deed of Absolute Sale, there is a stipulation which states that Valdez However, Valdez and their family are also the owners of two
“shall be provided a 2 1/2 meters wide road right-of-way on the western side properties adjoining the subject property which have access to two public
roads or highways.
of their lot but which is not included in this sale.”

Since Valdez then have more than adequate passage to two public roads,
Subsequently, Tabisula built a concrete wall on the western side of the
they have no right to demand the grant by respondents of an easement on
property. Believing that that side is the intended road right of way mentioned
the "western side of Tabisula’s lot."
in the deed, Valdez filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with
Damages against Tabisula. He prayed that Tabisula be ordered to provide
the subject property with a 2½-meter wide easement and to remove the Moreover, the creek on the south is now a barangay road by which Valdez
concrete wall blocking the same. could access the street.

Issue: WON Tabisula may be granted an easement

Ruling: No.

Under Article 619 of the Civil Code, there are two kinds of easements
according to source – by law (legal) or by the will of the owners (voluntary).

It is clear that what Valdez seeks to enforce is an alleged grant in the deed
by Tabisula of an easement, or a voluntary easement.

The proviso that the intended grant of right of way is "not included in this
sale" could only mean that they would have to enter into a separate and
distinct agreement for the purpose. The use of the word "shall," should be
construed as merely permissive where, as in the case at bar, no public
benefit or private right requires it to be given an imperative meaning.

Valdez is neither entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of right of way.


For to be entitled to such kind of easement, the preconditions under Articles
649 and 650 of the Civil Code must be established.

To be conferred a legal easement of right of way under Article 649, the


following requisites must be complied with: (1) the property is surrounded by
other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2)

You might also like