Alolino v. Flores, G.R. No.
198774, [April 4, 2016]
1. An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable
belonging to a different owner or for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom
the encumbered estate does not belong. Continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by
virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. Meanwhile, continuous but non-apparent easements and
discontinuous ones can only be acquired by virtue of a title. Used in this sense, title refers to a juridical
justification for the acquisition of a right. It may refer to a law, a will, a donation, or a contract.
2. We must distinguish between the respondents' house and the land it is built on. The land itself is
public property devoted to public use. It is not susceptible to prescription and cannot be burdened with
voluntary easements. On the other hand, the respondents' house is private property, albeit illegally
constructed on public property. It can be the object of prescription and can be burdened with voluntary
easements. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the respondents have not voluntarily burdened their
property with an easement in favor of Alolino.
3. An easement of a right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired through prescription. On the
other hand, an easement of light and view can be acquired through prescription counting from the time
when the owner of the dominant estate formally prohibits the adjoining lot owner from blocking the
view of a window located within the dominant estate.
Notably, Alolino had not made a formal prohibition upon the respondents prior to their construction in
1994; Alolino could not have acquired an easement of light and view through prescription. Thus, only
easements created by law can burden the respondents' property.
4. From the foregoing, we agree with the respondents that Alolino does not have an easement of light
and view or an easement of right of way over the respondents' property or the barrio road it stands on.
This does not mean, however, that the respondents are entitled to continue occupying the barrio road
and blocking the rear of Alolino's house. Every building is subject to the easement which prohibits the
proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance. 30 Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, the
respondents' house is evidently a nuisance because it bstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street.
5. A barrio road is designated for the use of the general public who are entitled to free and unobstructed
passage thereon. Permanent obstructions on these roads, such as the respondents' illegally constructed
house, are injurious to public welfare and convenience. The occupation and use of private individuals of
public places devoted to public use constitute public and private nuisances and nuisance per se.
Calimoso vs. Roullo
1. To be entitled to an easement of right-of-way, the following requisites should be met:
a. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
highway;
b. There is payment of proper indemnity;
c. The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and
d. The right-of-way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the
shortest."
2. The immovable in whose favor the easement is established is called the dominant estate, and the
property subject to the easement is called the servient estate. Here, the respondent's lot is the
dominant estate and the petitioners' lot is the servient estate.
3. Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of right-of-way shall be established at the
point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. Under this guideline, whenever
there are several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the right-of-way must be established on
the tenement where the distance to the public road or highway is shortest and where the least damage
would be caused. If these two criteria (shortest distance and least damage) do not concur in a single
tenement, we have held in the past that the least prejudice criterion must prevail over the shortest
distance criterion.
