TRIAS VS. ARANETA- Easement

Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications

TRIAS VS. ARANETA- Easement

Sellers of land may validly impose reasonable easements and restrictions as conditions for contracts of sales; the same may not be overturned by courts merely on the ground that it impacts dominical rights.

FACTS:

JM Tuason and Co. owned a piece of land that was part of a subdivision. Thru broker Araneta Inc (of Araneta Coliseum fame), this civic-minded company sold the land to Mr Lopez with the condition that said lot should never be used to erect a factory. This imposition was annotated to the TCT.
A series of transfers and conveyances later, the lot ended up in the hands of the gorgeous Ms. Rafael Trias. She was dismayed with the annotation that stated “5. That no factories be permitted in this section.”

Ms. Trias felt that the annotation impaired her dominical rights and therefore illegal and existed as mere surplusage since existing zoning regulations already prevented the erection of factories in the vicinity. Worse, the annotation possibly hindered her plans to obtain a loan. She accordingly raised the issue to the court and received relief.

Later on, Gregorio Araneta moved for reconsideration stating that the imposition resulted from a valid sales transaction between her predecessors in interest. He alleged that the court held no authority to overrule such valid easement and impaired the right to contract.

ISSUE: Whether or not the imposition was valid.

HELD:

The imposition was valid. The prohibition is an easement validly imposed under art 594 which provides that “every owner of a piece of land may establish easements he deems suitable xxx and not in contravention to the law, public policy and public order”

The court ruled that the easement existed to safeguard the peace and quiet of neighboring residents. The intention is noble and the objectives benign. In the absence of a clash with public policy, the easement may not be eroded.

The contention of surplusage is also immaterial. Zoning regulations may be repealed anytime, allowing the erection of factories. With the annotation, at the very least, the original intent to bar factories remains binding.