Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

618. UNISOURCE V.

CHUNG

FACTS
On October 1924, Encarnacion Sandico executed a memorandum of encumbrance of a voluntary
easement in favor of Francisco Hidalgo. This memorandum was annotated on the back of Sandico’s OCT.
As Sandico’s property was transferred to several owners, the memorandum of encumbrance of a
voluntary easement in favor of Hidalgo was consistently annotated at the back of every title covering
Sandico’s property.
Now, Sandico’s property belongs to Unisource and their TCT also carries the annotation of
voluntary easement in favor of Hidalgo.
On the other hand, Hidalgo’s property was eventually transferred to the Chungs.
On May 2005, the Chungs partitioned the property and it was consequently subdivided and
registered in the names of Joseph, Kiat, and Kleto Chung.
Unisource now wants to extinguish the easement. It contends that to say that the easement has
attached to Hidalgo’s property is erroneous since such property no longer exists after it has been
subdivided and registered in the names of the Chungs. Moreover, Unisource also alleges that the
easement should be extinguished since the dominant estate (Chung) has another adequate outlet
(Matienza Road) without having to pass through the servient estate.

ISSUES
1. WON the subdivision of the property caused the extinguishment of the easement.
2. WON the existence of an adequate outlet extinguished the easement in favor of the Chungs.

HELD

1. NO.
The subdivision of the property on May 2005 did not cause the extinguishment of the easement.
Article 618 of the Civil Code provides that if the dominant estate is divided between two or more
persons, each of them may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the place of its use, or
making it more burdensome in any other way.
Thus, by express provision of law, the subdivision of the property by the Chung siblings did not
cause the extinguishment of the easement.

2. NO.
To answer this issue, the issue on how the easement was established must first be determined.
In the case at bar, it was established that it was Sandico herself who annotated on her title the
memorandum of encumbrance of voluntary easement in favor of Hidalgo. Thus, it was a voluntary
easement.
Having established that the subject easement was done voluntarily, the requisite of necessity is
not important. In a voluntary easement, it is the will of the one who established the easement which is
important.
So, just because there exists another outlet to the highway does not mean that the easement is
extinguished. If it is a voluntary easement, necessity is not important.
Moreover, it is not only the one who established the easement who is bound by the easement.
His successors-in-interest are also bound. Thus, Unisource is bound by the easement established by
Sandico.