March 12, 1912
FACTS:
Pedro Roxas, the owner of Hacienda de San Pedro Macati , filed a claim for right of way across Parcel L, in order to enable his tenants to travel from the Hacienda to Calle Tejeron. The Archdiocese of Manila owned Parcel L.
Parcel L was bounded on the north by an estero; on the west by hacienda, on the southwest by Calle Tejeron; and on the west by lands of Francisco Managen.
The eastern line, which joined the hacienda, was 265 meters long. The claim of right of way starts across parcel L at a point 198 meters from the southern extremity of this line.
The tract of land (located in parcel L) which connects Calle Tejeron and the Hacienda, has grown from a 1.5 to 2 meters wide to 4 meters wide. Since time immemorial, it has been used by the tenants of the Hacienda for the passage of carts entering and leaving the Hacienda.
A church is constructed near the said tract, thus it is not only for the exclusive use of the tenants of Roxas’ hacienda, it is also used by the churchgoers, and sometimes by the people living in the Sitio of Suavoy, and other people
Following the trial, the Court of Land Registration denied Roxas' claim of right of way across parcel L.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether there is valid cause for the grant of the claim of right of way. -- NO.
HELD:
Because it is a permanent interest in another’s land with a right to enter at all times and enjoy it, it can only be founded upon agreement or upon prescription.
If the ground for a claim of right of way is prescription but the right of way is not essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant estate, the proof showing adverse use—which is an affirmative claim—must be sufficiently strong and convincing to overcome the presumption of permissive use or license.
In this case, the Court held that the use of the road by the tenants of Roxas has not been such as to create an easement by prescription or in any other manner.
Further, the Court held that the use of said road by all has been by permission or tolerance of the Archbishop of Manila.
The road was intended by the Archbishop of Manila for the convenience of the members or worshippers of the church; that the tenants and other people were allowed to use it more frequently was just mere toleration on the part of the Archbishop. Roxas failed to establish that he has a claim of right over the said tract of land, hence, their use of the land remain permissive and not adverse.