
TAÑEDO v BERNAD- Extinguishment of Easement
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
TAÑEDO v BERNAD- Extinguishment of Easement
An easement continues by operation of law. Alienation of the D and S estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of easements absent a statement extinguishing it.
FACTS:
Antonio Cardenas (resp) is the original owner of 2 parcels of land (7501-A and 7501-B). He constructed an apartment bldg in Lot A and in Lot B he constructed an apartment, house, bodega and a septic tank for common use of the occupants of the two lots.
Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Tañedo (pet). He also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Tañedo. However, Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp). Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. He also asked Tañnedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B.
Tañedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages against resps. Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet and claimed by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed of Sale he had executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. RTC dismissed the complaint and the cross claim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank ceased upon the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners.
RULING: NO.
The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easement. On the contrary, use of the easement is continued by operation of law as provided in Art 624 because no abolishment or extinguishment was provided in the deed of absolute sale. Nor did Cardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and septic tanks before he sold the lots. Accordingly, the spouses Sim cannot impair, in any manner, the use of the servitude.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
TAÑEDO v BERNAD- Extinguishment of Easement
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
TAÑEDO v BERNAD- Extinguishment of Easement
An easement continues by operation of law. Alienation of the D and S estates to different persons is not a ground for extinguishment of easements absent a statement extinguishing it.
FACTS:
Antonio Cardenas (resp) is the original owner of 2 parcels of land (7501-A and 7501-B). He constructed an apartment bldg in Lot A and in Lot B he constructed an apartment, house, bodega and a septic tank for common use of the occupants of the two lots.
Cardenas sold Lot A and mortgaged Lot B to Eduardo Tañedo (pet). He also agreed that should be decide to sell Lot B he would sell it to Tañedo. However, Cardenas sold Lot B to Spouses Sim (resp). Sim blocked the sewage pipe connecting the building on Lot A to the septic tank. He also asked Tañnedo to remove that portion of his building encroaching Lot B.
Tañedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages against resps. Cardenas admitted that he had agreed to sell the lot to pet and claimed by way of cross claim against spouses Sim that the Deed of Sale he had executed was only intended as an equitable mortgage. RTC dismissed the complaint and the cross claim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the right to continue to use the septic tank ceased upon the subdivision of the land and its subsequent sale to different owners.
RULING: NO.
The alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not one of the grounds for the extinguishment of an easement. On the contrary, use of the easement is continued by operation of law as provided in Art 624 because no abolishment or extinguishment was provided in the deed of absolute sale. Nor did Cardenas stop the use of the drain pipe and septic tanks before he sold the lots. Accordingly, the spouses Sim cannot impair, in any manner, the use of the servitude.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 8 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Preterition- J.L.T.…
J.L.T. Agro, Inc. v. Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005Preterition. In J.L.T. Agro, Inc. v. Antonio Balansag and Hilaria Cadayday, G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 (Tinga, J), there was a conflict of p...
Read moreWHAT IS A PRELIMINA…
Preliminary ExaminationWhat Is Preliminary ExaminationA preliminary examination is a proceeding for the purpose of determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest Puppose of Preliminary ExaminationIts purpose is to determi...
Read moreABELLANA V. CA 208 …
ABELLANA V. CA208 SCRA 316FACTS:Manglapus was the grantee of a free patent. In the free patent issued to him, there was a provision granting the government reservation for public easements and servitudes. After he was given the patent, the NIA entere...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

