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