Case Digest | Locsin v. Climaco
Locsin v. Climaco
26 SCRA 816
Facts:
The Central is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines. The Central owns a centrifugal sugar mill and manufactures sugar from sugar cane planted and grown in the aforesaid mill district.
In 1919 the Central entered into identical milling contracts with the sugar planters in the mill district, effective for thirty (30) crop years from 1921-1922 to 1951-1952.
The Central, under the milling contracts, undertook to construct, maintain and operate a railway system over and across the lands of the sugar planters in the mill district for the transportation of sugar cane, materials and supplies. Concomitant to the above obligation, the landowners granted to the Central corresponding rights of way over their lands.
In 1920 the Central constructed railroad tracks on the lands of the sugar planters. One trunk thereof traverses the hacienda San Vicente. The 1919 milling contracts expired automatically with the 1951- 1952 crop year.
On March 30, 1953 the Central and the Asociacion de Hacienderos de Silay-Saravia, representing sugar planters in the mill district (hereinafter referred to as the Asociacion), among them the Locsins, entered into a memorandum agreement, the term of which was for twelve (12) crop years ending with the 1963-1964 crop year.
The Mill recognizes the Asociacion de Hacienderos de Silay-Saravia or its successors in interest as the sole agent of the planters of the Silay-Saravia Mill District in its dealings with them during the period of the milling contract. The Mill binds itself not to enter into milling contracts with any individual planter except through the Asociacion de Hacienderos de Silay-Saravia.
The Planter agrees and undertakes to plant to cane at least one-third (1/3) of his land each crop year, and to carry another one-third (1/3) thereof in ratoons, or at his option, and subject to the prior approval of the Planter’s Association, to plant to cane each crop year not less than one-half of his land, leaving the rest to fallow or planted to other crops.
Issue:
Whether or not the court committed grave abuse in granting the writ of injuction?
Held:
[T]he Preliminary injunction was issued on an erroneous premise, “the premature assumption that respondent Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., is entitled to the legal easement prayed for by it”, since the existence of the statutory requisites for such easement had not been properly averred or proved…. Of course, petitioner may duly show at the hearing on the merits that the preconditions required by the Civil Code do actually exist; but until that is done the right to the legal servitude is not clear, and the writ of injunction is unwarranted, and issued in grave abuse of discretion.
Related posts:
- Case Digest | Bachrach Motor Company v. Ledesma
- Case Digest | Sibal v. Valdez et.al.
- Case Digest | Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo
- Case Digest | Francisco v. Intermediate Appellate Court
- Property Case Digest | Leon Alderete v. Gregorio Amandoron, and Julio Angosto
- Case Digest | Morandarte v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Gargantos v. Yanon
- Case Digest | Director, Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Jose De Luna v. Court of Appeals, Hon.Santiago Maliwanag, Juan Dimaano, Jr.,
- Case Digest | Manila Electric Co. v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
