Ronquillo v. Roco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs alleged continuous and uninterrupted use of a road traversing defendants' land for over 20 years, which defendants and their predecessors allegedly recognized as a private legal easement of right of way. On May 12, 1953, defendants allegedly obstructed this right of way by constructing a chapel. On July 10, 1954, new defendants allegedly illegally and violently planted posts, fenced with barbed wire, and hermetically closed the road, preventing plaintiffs from accessing their homes. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissed the amended and supplemental complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. The Petition: Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal order directly to the Supreme Court, raising a question of law.
Issue(s)
Whether an easement of right of way, being an apparent but discontinuous easement, can be acquired through acquisitive prescription.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. Dispositive Portion: The order appealed from is hereby affirmed. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that an easement of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription under Philippine law. Applying Articles 620 and 622 of the New Civil Code (and Articles 537 and 539 of the Old Civil Code), the Court reiterated that only continuous and apparent easements are subject to acquisitive prescription. The Court defined discontinuous easements, citing Manresa and Sanchez Roman, as those used at intervals and which depend upon the acts of man. Because a person cannot cross a path incessantly, the use of a right of way is inherently intermittent, thus classifying it as a discontinuous easement. Even with the introduction of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), the requirement for 'uninterrupted' possession for ten years remains, a condition which a discontinuous easement cannot satisfy. Consequently, the Court concluded that the easement of right of way can only be established by virtue of a title, and the long-term use by the plaintiffs did not create a vested legal right.
Main Doctrine
An easement of right of way, being a discontinuous easement, cannot be acquired by prescription under the Civil Code, but only by virtue of a title.