The Power of Apparent Signs in Establishing Easements: A Lesson from Philippine Jurisprudence

Spouses Rudy Fernandez and Cristeta Aquino v. Spouses Merardo Delfin and Angelita Delfin, G.R. No. 227917, March 17, 2021

Imagine owning a piece of land that’s cut off from the world, with no way to reach the nearest road. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a real issue that can dramatically impact property owners and their ability to use their land effectively. In the Philippines, the case of Spouses Rudy Fernandez and Cristeta Aquino versus Spouses Merardo Delfin and Angelita Delfin sheds light on how the law can come to the rescue through the concept of easements. At the heart of this case is the question: Can an easement be established simply by the visible signs left by a previous owner?

The Fernandez couple once owned five contiguous parcels of land in Dagupan City. Two of these properties, located in front, provided the only access to the national highway for the three properties at the back. In 1980, they annotated an easement of right of way on the titles of the front properties to ensure continued access. However, after the front properties were foreclosed and sold to the Delfins, a dispute arose over the validity of this easement. The key legal question was whether the apparent signs of an easement established by the original owners could be considered a valid title when the properties were transferred.

Legal Context: Understanding Easements and Apparent Signs

Easements are legal rights to use another person’s land for a specific purpose, like a pathway or access road. They are crucial in ensuring that properties, especially those without direct road access, remain usable and valuable. In the Philippines, the Civil Code governs easements, with Article 624 being particularly relevant in this case.

Article 624 of the Civil Code states: “The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed.”

This provision essentially means that if a property owner establishes a visible sign of an easement between two properties they own, and then sells one of those properties, the easement continues unless the deed of sale explicitly states otherwise or the sign is removed before the sale.

To illustrate, consider a homeowner who builds a driveway across two lots they own to access the street. If they later sell one lot, the driveway’s existence could be seen as a title to an easement, allowing the remaining lot to continue using the driveway, provided no objections are made in the sale deed.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of the Easement

The Fernandezes’ story began with the annotation of an easement on their properties’ titles in 1980. This was their way of ensuring that the back properties would always have access to the national highway. However, when they defaulted on a loan and the front properties were foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank, the situation changed.

The bank, and later the Delfins who purchased the front properties from the bank, inherited the same annotations on their titles. Yet, the Delfins refused to honor the easement, leading to a legal battle. The Fernandezes filed a complaint for specific performance and right of way, arguing that the annotated easement should be respected.

The case moved through the courts, with the Regional Trial Court initially siding with the Fernandezes, establishing a right of way on the west side of the properties. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that no valid easement existed because the properties had been under single ownership when the easement was established.

The Supreme Court, however, saw it differently. They emphasized that Article 624 applies when two properties were once owned by the same person and an apparent sign of an easement exists. The Court noted:

“Article 624 applies in case one person who owns two properties established an apparent sign of an easement between them. When the ownership of either property is transferred to another, the existence of the apparent sign of easement shall be considered as a title over an easement, unless the contrary is provided in the deed of transfer, or if the apparent sign is removed before the deed of transfer’s execution.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from previous cases to reinforce their stance:

“The existence of the apparent sign [of easement] equivalent to a title, when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the two owners, is sound and correct, because as it happens in this case, there is an implied contract between them that the easements in question should be constituted.”

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Fernandezes, recognizing the validity of the easement based on the annotations and the path used as an apparent sign.

Practical Implications: Navigating Easements in Property Transactions

This ruling has significant implications for property owners and buyers in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of understanding and respecting easements, especially those established by previous owners through visible signs.

For property owners, it’s crucial to document any easements clearly and ensure they are noted on property titles. If you’re buying property, be aware of any existing easements, as they can affect how you use your land. The case also highlights the need for clear communication and documentation in property transactions to avoid future disputes.

Key Lessons:

• Visible signs of an easement can serve as a title when properties are sold, provided no objections are raised in the deed of sale.
• Property owners should ensure that any easements they establish are properly documented and annotated on titles.
• Buyers must be diligent in checking for existing easements, as they can impact property use and value.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an easement?

An easement is a legal right to use someone else’s land for a specific purpose, such as a pathway or access road.

Can an easement be established without a formal agreement?

Yes, under Article 624 of the Civil Code, an apparent sign of an easement between two properties owned by the same person can serve as a title when one property is sold, unless the deed of sale states otherwise.

Do I need to pay for using an easement?

It depends on the terms of the easement. If it’s established by a previous owner and recognized by the current owner, no payment may be required. However, if it’s a new easement, compensation might be necessary.

What should I do if I discover an easement on my property after purchase?

Check your title for any annotations and review the deed of sale. If the easement was not disclosed, you may have grounds for legal action. Consult a lawyer to understand your rights and options.

Can I remove an easement from my property?

Removing an easement can be complex and usually requires agreement from the party benefiting from the easement or a court order. Legal advice is essential in such cases.

ASG Law specializes in property law and easements. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.