B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R. No.

120724-25 May 21, 1998

Salimbangon v Tan Salimbangon v Tan

I. Recit-ready summary 5. To Victoria Ceniza, Lot E, subject to a perpetual and grat[u]itous road right of way
Guillermo Ceniza died intestate leaving a parcel of land at Poblacion, Mandaue City. 1.50 m. wide along its SW. boundary in favor of Lot D of the subdivision
Twenty years later his children executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs and partition,
adjudicating and dividing the land among themselves. Lots A, B, and C were adjacent to a Lots A, B, and C were adjacent to a city street. But Lots D and E were not, they
city street. But Lots D and E were not, they being interior lots. To give these interior lots being interior lots. To give these interior lots access to the street, the heirs established in
access to the street, the heirs established in their extrajudicial partition an easement of right their extrajudicial partition an easement of right of way consisting of a 3-meter wide
of way consisting of a 3-meter wide alley between Lots D and E that continued on between alley between Lots D and E that continued on between Lots A and B and on to the
Lots A and B and on to the street. The partition that embodied this easement of right of way
street. The partition that embodied this easement of right of way was annotated on the
was annotated on the individual titles issued to the heirs.
individual titles issued to the heirs.
But, realizing that the partition resulted in an unequal division of the property, the
heirs modified their agreement by eliminating the easement of right of way along Lots A, D, But, realizing that the partition resulted in an unequal division of the property, the
and E, and in its place, imposed a 3-meter wide alley, an easement of right of way, that ran heirs modified their agreement by eliminating the easement of right of way along Lots
exclusively along the southwest boundary of Lot B from Lots D and E to the street. A, D, and E, and in its place, imposed a 3-meter wide alley, an easement of right of way,
Petitioner Victoria became the owner of Lot A, one of the three lots adjacent to the that ran exclusively along the southwest boundary of Lot B from Lots D and E to the
city street. Victoria and her husband (the Salimbangons) constructed a residential house on street
this lot and built two garages on it. Then had it cemented and gated. Victoria (now petitioner Victoria Salimbangon) later swapped lots with Benedicta
espondent spouses Santos and Erlinda Tan (the Tans) bought Lots B, C, D, and E with the result that Victoria became the owner of Lot A, one of the three lots adjacent to
from all their owners. The Tans built improvements on Lot B that spilled into the easement the city street. Victoria and her husband (the Salimbangons) constructed a residential
area. They also closed the gate that the Salimbangons built. Unable to use the old right of house on this lot and built two garages on it. One garage abutted the street while the
way, the Salimbangons lodged a complaint with the City Engineer of Mandaue against the other, located in the interior of Lot A, used the alley or easement of right of way existing
Tans on Lot B to get to the street. Victoria had this alley cemented and gated.
WON ROW is extinguished? YES
The easement of right way for the benefit of Lots D and E was extinguished. The
Subsequently, however, respondent spouses Santos and Erlinda Tan (the Tans) bought
Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that based on the testimony of one of the
previous owners, Eduardo Ceniza, the true intent of the parties was to establish that Lots B, C, D, and E from all their owners. The Tans built improvements on Lot B that
easement of right of way for the benefit of the interior lots, namely, Lots D and E. spilled into the easement area. They also closed the gate that the Salimbangons built.
Consequently, when ownership of Lots B, D, and E was consolidated into the Tans, the Unable to use the old right of way, the Salimbangons lodged a complaint with the City
easement ceased to have any purpose and became extinct. Engineer of Mandaue against the Tans. For their part, the Tans filed an action with the
and the costs of action. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue against the Salimbangons in Civil Case MAN-
II. Facts of the case 3223 for the extinguishment of the easement on Lot B and damages with application for
preliminary injunction
Guillermo Ceniza died intestate on July 11, 1951, leaving a parcel of land at Poblacion,
Mandaue City. Twenty years later on July 17, 1973 his children Benedicta, Guillermo, CA REVERSED
Jr., Victoria, Eduardo, and Carlos executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs and .
partition, adjudicating and dividing the land among themselves as follows: Issue/s
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the easement of right of way established by
1. To Benedicta T. Cabahug, Lot A subject to a perpetual and grat[u]itous road right of the partition agreement among the heirs for the benefit of Lot A has been extinguished.
way 1.50 m. wide along its NW. boundary in favor of Lots B, E, and D, of the
subdivision; III. Ratio/Legal Basis

The Salimbangons point out that the partition agreement among the heirs established in
2. To Eduardo Ceniza, Lot B subject to a perpetual and grat[u]itous road right of way
their favor, as owners of Lot A, an easement of right of way on Lot B from the interior of their
1.50 m. wide along its SW. boundary in favor of Lots A, D & E of the subdivision; lot to the city street. Since theirs was an easement established by agreement of the parties, only
by mutual agreement could the same be extinguished.
3. To Carlos Ceniza, Lot C;
But, firstly, as Eduardo Ceniza testified, the true agreement of the heirs was for the
4. To Guillermo Ceniza Jr., Lot D subject to a perpetual and grat[u]itous road right of establishment of an easement of right of way for the benefit solely of the lots that did not have
way 1.50 m. wide along its NE. boundary in favor of Lot B and E of the subdivision; direct access to the street, namely Lots D and E. His testimony made sense.
and

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Abad, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Right of way DIGEST MAKER: Romeo Luis R. Villonco
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R. No. 120724-25 May 21, 1998
Salimbangon v Tan Salimbangon v Tan

As originally constituted in that agreement, each of Lots A and B was to contribute a

strip of 1.5 meters between them that when combined formed a 3-meter wide alley leading
from Lots D and E to the street. To the extent that Lots A and B retained the right to use the
1.5-meter portion that they contributed to the establishment of the easement, the agreement
gave their owners the right to use the common alley as well. As Eduardo testified, however, the
true intent of the heirs was to give Lots D and E access to the street. Lots A and B did not need
this alley since they were facing the street.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. Judgment is hereby rendered
ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff the amount of P2,675, with interest thereon from January
3, 1955, and the costs of action.
Consequently, when the owner of Lots D and E also became the owner of Lot B, the
easement of right of way on Lot B became extinct by operation of law.[8] The existence of a
dominant estate and a servient estate is incompatible with the idea that both estates belong to
the same person.
there is no question that when the heirs realized that it was not fair to take strips of
1.5 meters from each of Lots A, D, and E for the easement of right of way when these lots
were already small, the heirs executed a "Cancellation of Annotation of Right of Way, etc."
that cancelled the easement of right of way they earlier established on Lots A, D, and E and in
its place imposed a 3-meter wide easement of right of way solely on Lot B.

Although the "cancellation" document did not say so, it was implicit that the changed location
of the easement cancelled not only the 1.5-meter strip of easement imposed on Lot A of the
Salimbangons but also their right to use the new 3-meter easement alley that lay entirely on
Lot B. Strictly speaking, if the Salimbangons insist that their right as dominant estate under the
original partition agreement remains, then that would be partly on a 1.5-meter strip of their
own Lot A and partly on the equivalent 1.5-meter strip on the side of Lot B, not on the new 3-
meter alley established entirely on Lot B.

The point is that, obviously, in establishing the new easement of right of way, the heirs
intended to abandon the old one. Since this 3-meter alley on Lot B directly connected Lots D
and E to the street, it is also obvious that only the latter lots were its intended beneficiary. And,
with the ownership of Lots B, D, and E now consolidated in a common owner, namely, the
Tans, then the easement of right of way on Lot B may be said to have been extinguished by
operation of law.
Notes

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Abad, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Right of way DIGEST MAKER: Romeo Luis R. Villonco