Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008, Aneco Realty Dev. Vs Landex Development

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    Landex started constructing a concrete wall on one of its lots. Aneco filed a complaint to restrain construction and demolish the wall, alleging it deprived access to its lots. However, Landex claimed Aneco still had its own entrance. The RTC initially granted the injunction but later dismissed on reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that as the owner, Landex had the right under the Civil Code to fence its own property, and Aneco failed to prove it had a clear legal right to prevent Landex from doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008, Aneco Realty Dev. Vs Landex Development

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    71 views1 page
    Landex started constructing a concrete wall on one of its lots. Aneco filed a complaint to restrain construction and demolish the wall, alleging it deprived access to its lots. However, Landex claimed Aneco still had its own entrance. The RTC initially granted the injunction but later dismissed on reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that as the owner, Landex had the right under the Civil Code to fence its own property, and Aneco failed to prove it had a clear legal right to prevent Landex from doing so.

    Original Description:

    sales

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008, aneco realty dev. vs landex development

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Landex started constructing a concrete wall on one of its lots. Aneco filed a complaint to restrain construction and demolish the wall, alleging it deprived access to its lots. However, Landex claimed Aneco still had its own entrance. The RTC initially granted the injunction but later dismissed on reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that as the owner, Landex had the right under the Civil Code to fence its own property, and Aneco failed to prove it had a clear legal right to prevent Landex from doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views1 page

    G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008, Aneco Realty Dev. Vs Landex Development

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    Landex started constructing a concrete wall on one of its lots. Aneco filed a complaint to restrain construction and demolish the wall, alleging it deprived access to its lots. However, Landex claimed Aneco still had its own entrance. The RTC initially granted the injunction but later dismissed on reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that as the owner, Landex had the right under the Civil Code to fence its own property, and Aneco failed to prove it had a clear legal right to prevent Landex from doing so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    165952 July 28, 2008


    ANECO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,
    vs.
    LANDEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent

    FACTS:
    Fernandez Hermanos Development, Inc. (FHDI) is the original owner of a tract of land in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon
    City. FHDI subdivided the land into 39 lots. It later sold 22 lots to petitioner Aneco and the remaining 17 lots to respondent
    Landex.
    Landex started the construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots. To restrain construction of the wall, Aneco filed a
    complaint for injunction with the RTC in Quezon City. Aneco later filed two supplemental complaints seeking to demolish
    the newly-built wall and to hold Landex liable for two million pesos in damages.
    Landex filed its answer alleging, among others, that Aneco was not deprived access to its lots due to the construction of the
    concrete wall. Landex claimed that Aneco has its own entrance to its property.
    The RTC rendered a Decision granting the complaint for injunction. Landex moved for reconsideration.
    The RTC issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration of Landex and dismissing the complaint of Aneco
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Aneco may enjoin Landex from constructing a concrete wall on its own property.
    HELD:
    What is involved here is an undue interference on the property rights of a landowner to build a concrete wall on his own
    property. It is a simple case of a neighbor, petitioner Aneco, seeking to restrain a landowner, respondent Landex, from
    fencing his own land.
    Article 430 of the Civil Code gives every owner the right to enclose or fence his land or tenement by means of walls, ditches,
    hedges or any other means. The right to fence flows from the right of ownership. As owner of the land, Landex may fence
    his property subject only to the limitations and restrictions provided by law. Absent a clear legal and enforceable right.
    Aneco failed to prove any clear legal right to prevent, much less restrain, Landex from fencing its own property.
    Aneco cannot rely on the road lot under the old subdivision project of FHDI because it knew at the time of the sale that it
    was buying ordinary lots, not subdivision lots, from FHDI. This is clear from the deed of sale between FHDI and Aneco
    where FHDI manifested that it was no longer interested in pursuing its own subdivision project. If Aneco wants to transform
    its own lots into a subdivision project, it must make its own provision for road lots. It certainly cannot piggy back on the road
    lot of the defunct subdivision project of FHDI to the detriment of the new owner Landex.

    You might also like