Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 614 views

    Ronquillo vs. Roco

    Uploaded by

    rienaanaa
    The plaintiffs claimed they had acquired a legal easement through prescription to use a road on the defendants' land for over 20 years. However, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs' use of the road in 1953 and 1954. The issue was whether an easement of right of way can be acquired through prescription. The majority ruled that under the Civil Code, an easement of right of way cannot be acquired through prescription as it is considered a discontinuous easement. However, the minority view was that the special law on prescription allows continuous use to establish a vested right of way through prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ronquillo vs. Roco

    Uploaded by

    rienaanaa
    614 views1 page
    The plaintiffs claimed they had acquired a legal easement through prescription to use a road on the defendants' land for over 20 years. However, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs' use of the road in 1953 and 1954. The issue was whether an easement of right of way can be acquired through prescription. The majority ruled that under the Civil Code, an easement of right of way cannot be acquired through prescription as it is considered a discontinuous easement. However, the minority view was that the special law on prescription allows continuous use to establish a vested right of way through prescription.

    Original Description:

    Property - Easement

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs claimed they had acquired a legal easement through prescription to use a road on the defendants' land for over 20 years. However, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs' use of the road in 1953 and 1954. The issue was whether an easement of right of way can be acquired through prescription. The majority ruled that under the Civil Code, an easement of right of way cannot be acquired through prescription as it is considered a discontinuous easement. However, the minority view was that the special law on prescription allows continuous use to establish a vested right of way through prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    614 views1 page

    Ronquillo vs. Roco

    Uploaded by

    rienaanaa
    The plaintiffs claimed they had acquired a legal easement through prescription to use a road on the defendants' land for over 20 years. However, the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs' use of the road in 1953 and 1954. The issue was whether an easement of right of way can be acquired through prescription. The majority ruled that under the Civil Code, an easement of right of way cannot be acquired through prescription as it is considered a discontinuous easement. However, the minority view was that the special law on prescription allows continuous use to establish a vested right of way through prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LEOGARIO RONQUILLO, ET AL. vs.

    JOSE ROCO, as Administrator of VICENTE ROCO Y


    DOMIGUEZ, ET AL., G.R. No. L-10619, FEBRUARY 28, 1958

    FACTS:

    The plaintiffs alleges that they have been in the continuous and uninterrupted use of a road or passage
    way which traversed the land of the defendants and their predecessors in interest, for more than 20
    years. That the defendants and the tenants of Vicente Roco, the predecessors in interest of the said
    defendants have long recognized and respect the private legal easement of road right of way of said
    plaintiffs.

    That on May 12, 1953, the defendants Jose Roco thru his co-defendants and their men with malice
    aforethought and with a view to obstructing the plaintiffs’ private legal easement over the property of the
    late Vicente Roco, obstructed and disturbed the continuous exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs over said
    right of way. That on July 10, 1954 the new defendants Natividad Roco and Gregorio Miras, Jr. with the
    approval of the defendant, Jose Roco, illegally and violently planted wooden posts, fenced with barbed
    wire and closed hermitically the road passage way and their right of way in question against their protests
    and opposition.

    The plaintiffs claimed to have acquired the easement of right of way over the land of the defendants and
    the latters’ predecessors in interest, thru prescription by their continuous and uninterrupted use of a
    narrow strip of land of the defendants as passage way or road.

    ISSUE/S:

    Whether or not an easement of right of way can be acquired thru prescription.

    RULING:

    No.

    Under the Old and New Civil Code, easements may be Continuous or discontinuous, apparent or non-
    apparent, discontinuous being those used at more or less long intervals and which depend upon acts of
    man. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by title or prescription, continuous non-
    apparent easements and discontinuous ones whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of
    a title.

    Under the provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles 615, 620 and 622 of the New Civil Code, it
    would appear that the easement of right of way may not be acquired through prescription. Even Art. 1959
    of the Old Civil Code providing for prescription of ownership, excludes therefrom the exception
    established by Art. 539, referring to discontinuous easements, such as, easement of right of way.

    The minority of which the writer of this opinion is a part, believes that the easement of right of way may
    now be acquired through prescription, at least since the introduction into this jurisdiction of the special law
    on prescription through the Old Code of Civil Procedure, Act. No. 190. Said law makes no distinction as to
    the real rights which are subject to prescription and there would appear to be no valid reason, why the
    continued use of a path or a road or right of way, specially by the public, cannot give said party a vested
    right to such right of way through prescription.

    Even under the case of Cuaycong vs. Benedicto, the Tribunal insinuated that the rule that no
    discontinuous easement may under Art. 539 of the Old Civil Code might possibly have been changed by
    the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to prescription.

    However, the opinion of the majority must prevail, and it is held that under the present law, particularly,
    the provisions of the Civil Code, old and new, unless and until the same is changed or clarified, the
    easement of right of way may not be acquired through prescription.

    You might also like