The Supreme Court has affirmed that only property owners or those with real rights to cultivate or use land can demand an easement of right-of-way. This ruling underscores the necessity of proving land ownership or a valid real right before an easement can be legally enforced, preventing those without legitimate claims from burdening neighboring properties. The decision clarifies that mere possession, without established ownership or real right, is insufficient to warrant the grant of an easement, thus protecting property owners from unwarranted encumbrances.

Unlocking Access: Can Claimed Possession Trump Formal Ownership in Right-of-Way Disputes?

The case of Liwayway Andres, Ronnie Andres, and Pablo B. Francisco v. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Incorporated revolves around a dispute over an easement of right-of-way. Petitioners sought access through respondent’s subdivision, claiming ownership of adjacent landlocked property through acquisitive prescription. The central legal question is whether the petitioners had sufficiently established their ownership or real right over the property to warrant the grant of an easement, considering the respondent’s denial of their long-term possession and the property’s status as unregistered public agricultural land.

The petitioners, Liwayway Andres, Ronnie Andres, and Pablo B. Francisco, filed a complaint asserting their right to an easement. They claimed to be co-owners and possessors for over 50 years of a 10,500 square meter unregistered agricultural land in Pag-asa, Binangonan, Rizal. The respondent, Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Incorporated, had acquired surrounding lands and developed a residential subdivision, effectively blocking the petitioners’ access to the nearest public road, Col. Guido Street.

During the trial, Pablo testified that he bought a 4,000-square meter portion of the land from Carlos Andres, the husband of Liwayway and father of Ronnie and Liza. Liwayway claimed that Carlos acquired the property through continuous, public, and peaceful possession for 50 years. However, the Municipal Assessor of Binangonan testified that the property was already declared for taxation purposes under the names of Juan Diaz and later, Juanito Blanco, et al., leading to the denial of Carlos’ application for a tax declaration.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, deeming that the respondent had impliedly admitted the petitioners’ long-term possession. Based on Article 1137 of the Civil Code, the RTC concluded that the petitioners had acquired ownership through extraordinary prescription and were entitled to demand an easement. Article 1137 states:

“Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.”

This decision was appealed by the respondent.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the petitioners failed to sufficiently establish their ownership or real right over the subject property. The CA also noted that the respondent had, in fact, denied the petitioners’ claim of long-term possession. The appellate court concluded that without proof of ownership or real right, the petitioners had no basis to demand an easement. The CA decision stated:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the May 22, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 00-037-B is ordered DISMISSED.”

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that they had acquired ownership through ordinary acquisitive prescription, pointing to Carlos’ registration claim with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and his attempt to declare the property for taxation in 1998. They contended that since more than 10 years had passed without the Blancos contesting their possession, ordinary acquisitive prescription had set in. Alternatively, they argued for extraordinary acquisitive prescription, citing their open, continuous, and peaceful possession for over 50 years.

The Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ claim of ordinary acquisitive prescription was raised for the first time on appeal. The Court cited the rule that issues not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be considered by a reviewing court. Even if timely raised, the Court found that the petitioners failed to prove that the subject property, an unregistered public agricultural land, had been declared as no longer intended for public use or converted into patrimonial land. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of such a declaration before acquisitive prescription can apply, citing Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the Philippines.

The Court also highlighted the principle that property of the State not patrimonial in character cannot be subject to prescription, referencing Article 1113 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court emphasized that the petitioners’ claims of ownership based on prescription were insufficient. Therefore, they could not demand an easement of right-of-way from the respondent. As the Supreme Court stated:

“[W]ithout an express declaration by the State, the land remains to be a property of public dominion and hence, not susceptible to acquisition by virtue of prescription.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners had sufficiently established their ownership or real right over the subject property to be entitled to demand an easement of right-of-way from the respondent.
What is an easement of right-of-way?	An easement of right-of-way is a legal right granted to a person to pass through another person’s property to access a public road or their own property. It is typically granted when a property is landlocked and has no other adequate access.
What is acquisitive prescription?	Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership of property through continuous possession over a period of time. There are two types: ordinary, requiring possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years, and extraordinary, requiring uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without the need for title or good faith.
Why did the Supreme Court deny the petitioners’ claim?	The Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ claim because they failed to prove their ownership or real right over the subject property. They also failed to show that the land had been declared as no longer intended for public use or converted into patrimonial land, a prerequisite for acquisitive prescription.
What is the significance of proving ownership or real right in demanding an easement?	Proving ownership or real right is crucial because only owners or those with a legitimate claim to cultivate or use the land are entitled to demand an easement of right-of-way. This requirement prevents unwarranted encumbrances on private property by those without a valid basis.
What does it mean for a land to be declared as no longer intended for public use?	It means that the government has officially declared that the land is no longer needed for public service or the development of national wealth. This declaration is a prerequisite for converting public land into patrimonial land, which can then be subject to private ownership through acquisitive prescription.
What is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription?	Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without the need for title or good faith.
Can unregistered agricultural land be acquired through prescription?	Unregistered agricultural land can be acquired through prescription only if it has been officially declared as no longer intended for public use or converted into patrimonial land. Without such a declaration, the land remains property of public dominion and cannot be acquired through prescription.

This case highlights the critical importance of establishing clear ownership or real rights over property before demanding an easement of right-of-way. The ruling reinforces the protection of property rights and clarifies the requirements for claiming ownership through acquisitive prescription, particularly for unregistered public agricultural lands. It serves as a reminder that mere possession is insufficient to warrant the grant of an easement without proper legal basis.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LIWAYWAY ANDRES, RONNIE ANDRES, AND PABLO B. FRANCISCO, PETITIONERS, VS. STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015