G.R. No. 152319 Case Digest

G.R. No. 152319, October 28, 2009

Heirs of Joaquin Limense

vs Rita Vda. De Ramos

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

Lozada was the registered owner of a land in Manila, he subdivided his property into five and gave the divided lots to his daughters through a deed of donation on March 9, 1932.

In 1981, Joaquin Limense wanted to build a hollow block fence on his property but could not because a substantial portion of the respondent's building encroached upon portion of Limense property.

Limense demanded the removal of the encroached area, respondent ignored both oral and written demands.

In the RTC, the respondents averred that they are daughters of on of the Lozada daughters. .  After subdividing the said lot, Dalmacio Lozada donated Lot No. 12-C in favor of his daughters Catalina, married to Sotero Natividad; Isabel, married to Isaac Limense; and Salud, married to Francisco Ramos. Being the surviving heirs of Francisco Ramos, respondents later became co-owners of Lot No. 12-C. Lot No. 12-C has served as right of way or common alley of all the heirs of Dalmacio Lozada since 1932 up to the present. As a common alley, it could not be closed or fenced by Joaquin Limense without causing damage and prejudice to respondents.

RTC: dismissed the complaint of Limense ruling that an apparent easement of right of way existed in favor of respondents. The Court also finds that when plaintiff acquired the lot (12-C) which forms the alley, he knew that said lot could serve no other purpose than as an alley.

Joaquin filed a notice of appeal but during the pendency of the appeal with the CA, Joaquin died. His heirs then elevated the case to the SC via petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether CA committed a grave abuse amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that respondent's ot has an easement of right of way.

Held: In the case at bar, the action filed before the RTC against respondents was an action for removal of obstruction and damages.  Respondents raised the defense that Joaquin Limense's title could have been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation in the trial proceedings before the RTC. Such defense is in the nature of a collateral attack, which is not allowed by law.

]  As with the present case, the CA's observation that TCT No. 96886 is of dubious origin, as TCT No. 40043 does not appear to have been disposed of by Catalina, Isabel and Salud Lozada, is improper and constitutes an indirect attack on TCT No. 96886.  As we see it, TCT No. 96886, at present, is the best proof of Joaquin Limense’s ownership over Lot No. 12-C.  Thus, the CA erred in ruling that respondents and petitioners co-owned Lot No. 12-C, as said lot is now registered exclusively in the name of Joaquin Limense.

Due to the foregoing, Joaquin Limense, as the registered owner of Lot 12-C, and his successors-in-interest, may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.

Joaquin Limense and his successors-in-interests are fully aware that Lot No. 12-C has been continuously used and utilized as an alley by respondents and residents in the area for a long period of time.

The portions of Lot No. 12-D, particularly the overhang, covering 1 meter in width and 17 meters in length; the stairs; and the concrete structures are all within the 1/3 share allotted to them by their donor Dalmacio Lozada and, hence, there was absence of a showing that respondents acted in bad faith when they built portions of their house on Lot No. 12-C.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 33589 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. No co-ownership exists over Lot No. 12-C, covered by TCT No. 96886, between petitioners and respondents. 

2. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Manila, for further proceedings without further delay to determine the facts essential to the proper application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code.