BENEDICTO v CA, HERAS

Nature:
This case arose from an action filed by Heras to recover a
portion of land enclosed by Benedicto & to demand the reopening of easement of
way between the parties.
FACTS:
The adjoining properties now owned by Benedicto & Heras
formerly belonged to one owner- Miriam Hendrick. In 1917, Hendrick sold a portion
of the property to CM Recto & retained another for herself. At the time of sale,
several buildings were built on the respective properties. The deed of sale contained
several annotations among which is the annotation that there will be a passageway
for vehicle between the portion sold to Recto & which is held by Hendrick. The
passageway for vehicle was about 3-4 meters wide made up of half or equal
portions of each side of said properties. Both parties agree & require each to respect
the right of the other to use all the extentions for all the time and all the needs of
the property. This agreement is mandatory for all who subsequently acquire the
property by any title.
The passageway will be perpendicular to San Marcelino St. The
agreement of the parties was annotated on the respective titles of Recto &
Hendrick. The properties went to several transfers & the portion owned by Recto is
now acquired by Benedicto & the portion retained by Hendrick is now in Heras.
Sometime in 1941, Heras demolished the entire building on his
property. Subsequently Benedicto walled the passageway in 1946. Heras demanded
the easement of way to be reopened but Benedicto refused thus an action for
reopening of passageway was filed. Benedicto countered that the easement had
been extinguished by non-user & cessation of necessity.
ISSUE:
RULING:

Was the easement extinguished? NO

(1) Extinguishment by non-user

Benedicto claimed that the easement was originally constituted because the
properties were so adjoined together that the only way to reach San Marcelino St
was through the passageway. When Heras demolished the building, the frontage of
the property was now entirely open to San Marcelino St.Benedicto failed to prove by
indubitable evidence that there was non-user. Assuming that there was non-user,
the prescriptive period of 10 years has not yet elapsed when the case was filed in
1955. Non-user should be counted from 1946 when Benedicto walled the
passageway not in 1941.
(2) Cessation of Necessity
The easement constituted was perpetual in character & annotated on all TCTs. Since
there is nothing that would point to a mutual agreement between the parties & their
predecessors-in-interest with respect to discontinuance of easement. The continued
existence of easement must be upheld & respected.
DOCTRINE: Non-user must be proven by indubitable proof/evidence.
Voluntary easement survives cessation of necessity.

The fact that an easement may have also qualified as an easement of

necessity does not detract it from its permanency as a property right, which
survives the termination of necessity.