oflodoR-Rodolfo

Mascarina v. Eastern Quezon College

168 SCRA 100

Facts:

Petitioners herein are the co-owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land described as Lot 26 in the cadastral survey of Gumaca, Quezon. Lot 26 is bounded on the north by Lot 23, on the east by Lot 24 and a portion of the provincial road, on the west by a swamp and on the south by the Gumaca River and Lot 27.

Lots 23 and 27 are owned by the Eastern Quezon College, an educational institution. The school’s main building is situated on Lot 23 while its home economics building and the green revolution project are located in Lot 27.

By tolerance of the petitioners, students of the school used a small path within Lot 26 in going to and from Lots 23 and 27. There were times, however, when petitioners closed the path to pedestrians. Feeling that its students were prejudiced by said closures of the path, the school, through its officials, caused the “invitation” of petitioner Francisco Mascarina by the Philippine Constabulary ostensibly to discuss the question of right of way. Apparently, the discussion did not resolve the question. Hence, on September 6, 1976, the school and its president, Jose R. Vilar filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon a complaint praying for an easement of right of way over Lot 26.

In their answer, the defendants therein averred that plaintiffs were not entitled to the easement because Lots 23 and 27 were not surrounded by other lands without an adequate outlet to a public highway. They claimed that Lot 23 abuts the Gumaca cemetery road on the north while Lot 27 “nearly abuts” a newly opened public road on the west. They expressed the fear that should the easement be allowed, their lots would be surrounded by other realties thereby reversing the situation between the parties as they would then be the ones seeking a right of way. They imputed bad faith on the plaintiffs part in causing the “invitation” of Francisco Mascarina by the constabulary which they believed was actually designed to pressure them into agreeing to the plaintiffs’ demand. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and, as counterclaim, the payment of moral damages to Francisco Mascarina.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse?

Held:

While it is true that in its order of June 30, 1977, the lower court directed the holding of an ocular inspection of the properties involved, the record is bereft of any indication that such ocular inspection was indeed conducted. Although the easement is for a laudable purpose, there is a need for the determination of the proper compensation for the servient estate. The parties did not agree on this matter and neither was a hearing conducted thereon. Verily, the lower court may not arrogate upon itself the right to fix said compensation as well as the amount of damages for the crops and other improvements that may have to be destroyed to give effect to the easement.

As regards the propriety of the substitution of deceased defendant Jaime Sesperes, observance of the provisions of Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is imperative especially in view of the recent development that one Edizer Mascarina who claims to be the administrator (“tagapangasiwa”) of the estate of the late petitioner Francisco Mascarina has entered into an agreement with Eastern Quezon College through its registrar Estelita Rodelas to grant the school a right of way for a consideration as soon as this case is terminated. The rights of the other co- owners of Lot 26 would be unduly prejudiced should they not be fully informed of any transaction involving said property.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Property Case Digest | De La Rama v. Sanchez
2. Property Case Digest | Valenzuela v. Unson
3. Property Case Digest | Jabonete v. Monteverde
4. Property Case Digest | Saenz v. Hermanos
5. Case Digest | Baes v. Court of Appeals
6. Property Case Digest | Pamplona v. Moreto
7. Property Case Digest | Santos v. Buenconsejo
8. Case Digest | Salatandol v. Retes
9. Property Case Digest | Avelino Baluran v. Hon. Ricardo Navarro
10. Case Digest | Del Campo v. Abesia