You are on page 1of 3

JAVELLANA V.

IAC
172 SCRA 280
FACTS:
Marsall owned a parcel of land adjoining a river and elementary school. Before owning the land, there
existed already a main canal, transversing the property from the river up to the area of the school.
Javellana together with others closed the canal and destroyed the dam, leading to damages caused to
those benefiting from the canal.

HELD:
It is violative against the owner of a dominant estate to have closed the canals and destroyed the dam
which supplies water to the dominant estate.

ABELLANA V. CA
208 SCRA 316
FACTS:

Manglapus was the grantee of a free patent. In the free patent issued to him, there was
a provision granting the government reservation for public easements and servitudes.
After he was given the patent, the NIA entered
into his premises and started constructing canals.

HELD:

Where the land was originally public land, and awarded by free patent with a reservation
for a legal easement of a right of way in favor of the government, just compensation
need not be paid for the taking of the part thereof for public use as an easement of right
of way.

VALDERAMA V. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR


CENTRAL
48 PHIL 492
FACTS:
Case regarding the milling contracts and use of the railroad in going to the sugar central

HELD:
1. In a contract establishing an easement of way in favor of a sugar company for the
construction of a railroad for the transportation of sugar cane from the servient estates
to the mill, it is contrary to the nature of the contract to pretend that only sugar cane
grown in the servient estates can be transported on said railroad, because it is a well-
settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership and not by easement.
That an easement being established in favor of the sugar company, the owners of the
servient estates cannot limit its use to the transportation of their cane, there being no
express stipulation to that effect.

2. An easement of way is not more burdensome by causing to pass hereon wagons


carrying goods pertaining to persons who aren’t wners of the servient estates and at all
time the person entitled o the easement may please, for in such case the easement
continues to be the same.

BENEDICTO V. CA
25 SCRA 145
FACTS:
Hendrick was the owner of a property which half of it was sold to Recto. An easement of
way was annotated in the certificates of title. Subsequently, the remaining half of the
property was sold to Herras who then closed and walled the part of land serving as
easement of way.

HELD:
The easement is perpetual in character and was annotated in all the certificates of title.
Absence of anything that would show mutual agreement to extinguish the easement,
the easement persists.

You might also like