Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BAPCI v. Obias, G.R. No. 172077, October 9, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Acosta
    126 views1 page
    1) Article 622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that non-apparent easements and discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, can only be acquired through a title. 2) The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that an easement of right of way was acquired through acquisitive prescription, as jurisprudence holds that easements of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription. 3) The court also rejected the claim that an easement of right of way was acquired through laches, as the statutory requirement of title in Article 622 precludes the application of the equitable principle of laches.

    Original Description:

    09

    Original Title

    Right of Way Laches

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Article 622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that non-apparent easements and discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, can only be acquired through a title. 2) The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that an easement of right of way was acquired through acquisitive prescription, as jurisprudence holds that easements of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription. 3) The court also rejected the claim that an easement of right of way was acquired through laches, as the statutory requirement of title in Article 622 precludes the application of the equitable principle of laches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    126 views1 page

    BAPCI v. Obias, G.R. No. 172077, October 9, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Acosta
    1) Article 622 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that non-apparent easements and discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, can only be acquired through a title. 2) The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that an easement of right of way was acquired through acquisitive prescription, as jurisprudence holds that easements of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription. 3) The court also rejected the claim that an easement of right of way was acquired through laches, as the statutory requirement of title in Article 622 precludes the application of the equitable principle of laches.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Right of Way Laches

    As previously explained in our Decision, the applicable law is Article 622 of the Civil Code of
    the Philippines, which provides:

    Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not,
    may be acquired only by virtue of a title.

    The eminent jurist, former Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, opines that this provision seeks to
    prevent the imposition of a burden on a tenement based purely on the generosity, tolerance and
    spirit of neighborliness of the owners thereof.

    We applied the cited provision to the case in ruling that no easement of right of way was
    acquired; based on the evidence presented, the plaintiff-appellant failed to satisfactorily prove
    the existence of an agreement evidencing any right or title to use the disputed road. We
    additionally rejected the plaintiff-appellant’s position that it had acquired the easement of right
    of way through acquisitive prescription, as settled jurisprudence states that an easement of right
    of way cannot be acquired by prescription.

    We hold the same view on the issue of acquisition of an easement of right of way by laches. To
    our mind, settled jurisprudence on the application of the principle of estoppel by laches militates
    against the acquisition of an easement of right of way by laches.

    Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and not courts of equity;
    equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," should be applied only in the
    absence of, and never against, statutory law; Aeguetas nunguam contravenit legis. Based on this
    principle, we find that the positive mandate of Article 622 of the Civil Code – the statutory
    provision requiring title as basis for the acquisition of an easement of a right of way – precludes
    the application of the equitable principle of laches.

    This Court agrees with the CA. The fact that the law is categorical that discontinuous easements
    cannot be acquired by prescription militates against petitioner’s claim of laches. To stress,
    discontinuous easements can only be acquired by title. More importantly, whether or not the
    elements of laches are present is a question involving a factual determination by the trial court.58
    Hence, the same being a question of fact, it cannot be the proper subject of herein petition. On
    the other hand, as to the issue of estoppel, this Court likewise agrees with the finding of the CA
    that petitioner did not present any evidence that would show an admission, representation or
    conduct by respondents that will give rise to estoppel.59

    [BAPCI v. Obias, G.R. No. 172077, October 9, 2009]

    You might also like