CASTRO VS.
MONSOD In defiance, petitioner filed a complaint for damages
with temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
FACTS: injunction.
Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land Respondent alleged that the elevated part of
with an area of 130 sq.m. while respondent is the Manuela homes (location of the property of
owner of the property adjoining the lot of petitioner. petitioner) were bulldozed, excavated, and
transferred portions of the elevated land to the lower
Respondent caused the annotation of an adverse portions of Manuela Homes.
claim against 65 sq.m. of the property of petitioner. Thus, Manuela Homes became lower
The adverse claim was filed without any claim of than Moonwalk Village (location of the property of
ownership over the property. Respondent was merely respondent).
asserting the existing legal easement of lateral and
subjacent support at the rear portion of his estate to Before the said excavation, respondent personally
prevent the property from collapsing, since his complained to Pilar Development Corporation and
property is located at an elevated plateau of fifteen was assured that an embankment will be retained at
15 feet above the level of petitioner’s property the boundary of Manuela Homes and Moonwalk
Village.
Prior to the filing of the case, petitioner noticed a
leak that caused the front portion of her house to be Manuela Homes retained the embankment consisting
slippery, she hired construction workers to see where of soil and rocks. Respondent had the open space
the leak was coming from. The workers had already riprapped with stones as reinforcement against any
started digging when police officers sent by potential soil erosion, earthquake, and possible
respondent came and stopped the workers from digging by any person.
finishing their job..
RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court
explaining that the purpose of the annotation was to
prevent petitioner from making injurious excavations on the foundation of the rear portion of his property which is
subject embankment as to deprive the residential house adjacent to the property of petitioner.
and lot of respondent of its natural support and cause it to
collapse. Respondent only asked that petitioner respect the An easement or servitude is an encumbrance
legal easement already existing thereon. imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to a different owner.
ISSUE: Whether the easement of lateral and An easement is established either by law or by will of the
subjacent support exists on the subject adjacent owners. The courts cannot impose or constitute any
properties and, if it does, whether the same may be servitude where none existed. They can only declare its
annotated at the back of the title of the servient existence if in reality it exists by law or by the will of the
estate. owners. There are therefore no judicial easements.
HELD: YES.
Article 684 of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor
Article 437 of the Civil Code provides that the owner shall make such excavations upon his land as to deprive
of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or
everything under it, and he can construct thereon subjacent support. An owner, by virtue of his surface right,
any works, or make any plantations and excavations may make excavations on his land, but his right is subject
which he may deem proper. However, such right of to the limitation that he shall not deprive any adjacent land
the owner is not absolute and is subject to the or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support.
following limitations: (1) servitudes or Between two adjacent landowners, each has an absolute
easements, (2) special laws, (3) ordinances, (4) property right to have his land laterally supported by the
reasonable requirements of aerial navigation, and soil of his neighbor, and if either, in excavating on his own
(5) rights of third persons. premises, he so disturbs the lateral support of his
neighbor’s land as to cause it, or, in its natural state, by the
His reason for the annotation is only to prevent petitioner pressure of its own weight, to fall away or slide from its
from removing the embankment or from digging on the position, the one so excavating is liable
property for fear of soil erosion that might weaken the In the instant case, an easement of subjacent and
lateral support exists in favor of respondent. It was
established that the properties of petitioner and respondent
adjoin each other. The residential house and lot of
respondent is located on an elevated plateau of fifteen (15)
feet above the level of petitioner’s property. The
embankment and the riprapped stones have been in
existence even before petitioner became the owner of the
property. It was proven that petitioner has been making
excavations and diggings on the subject embankment and,
unless restrained, the continued excavation of the
embankment could cause the foundation of the rear portion
of the house of respondent to collapse, resulting in the
destruction of a huge part of the family dwelling
An annotation of the existence of the subjacent and
lateral support is no longer necessary. It exists
whether or not it is annotated or registered in the
registry of property. A judicial recognition of the
same already binds the property and the owner of
the same, including her successors-in-interest.
Otherwise, every adjoining landowner would come to court
or have the easement of subjacent and lateral support
registered in order for it to be recognized and respected.
