injunction against the private respondent, to have the gates
SOLID MANILA CORP. vs. BIO HONG TRADING CO.-
Easement and Servitudes
Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenement of which
they form part, and even if they are possessed of a separate
juridical existence, they cannot be alienated from the tenement
or mortgaged separately.
Note: In a personal servitude, there is no "owner of a dominant
tenement" to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons
without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large.
(Merger, which presupposes ownership, is not possible.)
FACTS:
Solid Manila Corp. is the owner of a parcel of land located in
Ermita. The same lies in the vicinity of another parcel registered
under Bio Hong Trading whose title came from a prior owner. In
the deed of sale between Bio Hong and the vendor, 900 sqm of
the lot was reserved as an easement of way.
The construction of the private alley was annotated on Bio
Hong’s title stating among other things "(6) That the alley shall
remain open at all times, and no obstructions whatsoever shall
be placed thereon; and (7) that the owner of the lot on which the
alley has been constructed shall allow the public to use the
same, and allow the City to lay pipes for sewer and drainage
purposes, and shall not act (sic) for any indemnity for the use
thereof”
The petitioner claims that ever since, it (along with other
residents of neighboring estates) made use of the above private
alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep, until
sometime in 1983, when, and over its protests, the private
respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered
use.
On December 6, 1984, the petitioner commenced suit for
removed and to allow full access to the easement.
The trial court ordered Bi Hong to open the gates but the latter
argued that the easement has been extinguished by merger in
the same person of the dominant and servient estates upon the
purchase of the property from its former owner.
CA reversed holding that an easement is a mere limitation on
ownership and that it does not impair the private respondent's
title, and that since the private respondent had acquired title to
the property, "merger" brought about an extinguishment of the
easement.
Thus, Solid went to the SC alleging that the very deed of sale
executed between the Bio Hong and the previous owner of the
property "excluded" the alley in question, and that in any event,
the intent of the parties was to retain the "alley" as an easement
notwithstanding the sale.
[While the case was pending, Bio Hong asked the RTC to
cancel the annotation in question, which it granted subject to the
final outcome of the prior case.]
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not easements may be alienated (sold) from the
tenement or mortgaged separately
2) Whether or not the easement had been extinguished by
merger.
HELD: NO to both
1) The sale included the alley. The court rejected Solid’s
contention that the alley was not included in the sale. It was
included but there was a limitation on its use-the easement. As
a mere right of way, it cannot be separated from the tenement
and maintain an independent existence. (Art. 617)
Even though Bio Hong acquired ownership over the property ––
including the disputed alley –– as a result of the conveyance, it
did not acquire the right to close that alley or otherwise put up
obstructions thereon and thus prevent the public from using it,
because as a servitude, the alley is supposed to be open to the
public.

2) No genuine merger took place as a consequence of the sale

in favor of the private respondent corporation. According to the
Civil Code, a merger exists when ownership of the dominant
and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. Merger
requires full ownership of both estates.
Note that The servitude in question is a personal servitude
(established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more
persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong). In a
personal servitude, there is therefore no "owner of a dominant
tenement" to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons
without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large. Thus,
merger could not have been possible.