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 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 lot 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment