Case Digest: Alolina vs. Flores G.R. No.

198774 I April 04,

2016
FACTS:
Alolino is the registered owner of two (2) contiguous parcels of land. Alolino
initially constructed a bungalow-type house on the property. In 1980, he
added a second floor to the structure. He also extended his two-storey house
up to the edge of his property. There are terraces on both floors. There are
also six (6) windows on the perimeter wall: three (3) on the ground floor and
another three (3) on the second floor.

In 1994, the respondent spouses Fortunato and Anastacia (Marie) Flores

constructed their house/sari sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road
immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of Alolino's house. The
structure is only about two (2) to three (3) inches away from the back of
Alolino's house, covering five windows and the exit door. The respondents'
construction deprived Alolino of the light and ventilation he had previously
enjoyed and prevented his ingress and egress to the municipal road through
the rear door of his house.

Respondents on their part argued that they had occupied their lot where
they constructed their house in 1955, long before the plaintiff purchased his
lot in the 70s. They further alleged that plaintiff only has himself to blame
because he constructed his house up to the very boundary of his lot without
observing the required setback. Finally, they emphasized that the wall of
their house facing Alolino's does not violate the latter's alleged easement of
light and view because it has no window.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not Alolino has acquired easement of light and view; and (2)
whether or not Alolino has acquired an easement of right of way.

DECISION:
Alolino does not have an easement of light and view or an easement of right
of way over the respondents' property or the barrio road it stands on. Articles
649-657 governs legal easements of right of way. None of these provisions
are applicable to Alolino's property with respect to the barrio road where the
respondents' house stands on.

On the other hand, an easement of light and view can be acquired through
prescription counting from the time when the owner of the dominant estate
formally prohibits the adjoining lot owner from blocking the view of a window
located within the dominant estate. Notably, Alolino had not made (and
could not have made) a formal prohibition upon the respondents prior to
their construction in 1994; Alolino could not have acquired an easement of
light and view through prescription.
 Philippine National Bank, Petitioner, vs.
 Spouses Bernard and Cresencia Maranon, Respondents
G.R.  No. 189316, July 01, 2013

Facts:  The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The antecedent
events being the Spouses Maranon, owner of a piece of real property, erected with a building occupied by
various tenants. Said subject property was among the properties mortgaged by spouses Montealegre to
PNB as a security for a loan. Spouses Montealegre, through a falsified Deed of Sale, acquired title to the
property and used the property’s title which was purportedly registered in the name of Emelie
Montealegre. However, due to failure to pay the loan, said property was foreclosed by PNB, and upon
auction, was thereafter acquired by the same bank, PNB. Spouses Maranon filed before the RTC a
complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and Damages against spouses Montealegre. Judgment
of RTC was rendered in favour of spouses Maranon, and also stipulated that the Real Estate Mortgage
lien of PNB shall stay and be respected. Such decision prompted PNB to also seek for entitlement to the
fruits of the property such as rentals paid by the tenants.

Issue:  Whether or not is PNB entitled to fruits of the disputed property.

Ruling:  No. Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of
accession. The rightful recipient of the disputed rent in this case should be thus the owner of the lot at the
time the rent accrued. It is beyond question that spouses Maranon never lost ownership over the subject
lot, and that technically, there is no juridical tie created by a valid mortgage contract that binds PNB to
the subject lot because the mortgagors Montealegre were not the true owners. PNB’s lien as a mortgagee
in good faith pertains to the subject lot alone and not on the erected building which was not foreclosed
and still remained to be a property of Maranon. Thus, PNB’s claim for the rents paid by the tenants has
no basis.
G.R. No. 171937, November 25, 2013
Calanasan v. Spouses Dolorito
Brion, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner Cerila J. Calanasan, took care of her orphan niece, respondent Evelyn C. Dolorita,
since childhood. In 1982, when Evelyn was already married to respondent Virgilio Dolorita, the
petitioner donated to Evelyn a parcel of land which had earlier been mortgaged for Pl5,000.00.
The donation was conditional: Evelyn must redeem the land and the petitioner was entitled to
possess and enjoy the property as long as she lived. Evelyn signified her acceptance of the
donation and its terms in the same deed. Soon thereafter, Evelyn redeemed the property, had
the title of the land transferred to her name, and granted the petitioner usufructuary rights over
the donated land. On August 15, 2002, the petitioner, assisted by her sister Teodora J.
Calanasan, complained with the RTC that Evelyn had committed acts of ingratitude against her.
She prayed that her donation in favor of her niece be revoked under Art. 765 of the NCC which
provides for the revocation of donation by reason of ingratitude.

In their answer, the respondents denied the commission of any act of ingratitude. The petitioner
died while the case was pending with the RTC. Her sisters, Teodora and Dolores J. Calanasan,
substituted for her. After the petitioner had rested her case, the respondents filed a demurrer to
evidence. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner may dissolve the donation

HELD:

No.

Article 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts, and
remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as regards that portion which
exceeds the value of the burden imposed."

The SC agree with the CA that since the donation imposed on the donee the burden of
redeeming the property for P15,000.00, the donation was onerous. As an endowment for a
valuable consideration, it partakes of the nature of an ordinary contract; hence, the rules of
contract will govern and Article 765 of the NCC finds no application with respect to the onerous
portion of the donation.

Insofar as the value of the land exceeds the redemption price paid for by the donee, a donation
exists, and the legal provisions on donation apply. Nevertheless, despite the applicability of the
provisions on donation to the gratuitous portion, the petitioner may not dissolve the donation.
She has no factual and legal basis for its revocation, as aptly established by the RTC. First, the
ungrateful acts were committed not by the donee; it was her husband who committed them.
Second, the ungrateful acts were perpetrated not against the donor; it was the petitioner's sister
who received the alleged ill treatments. These twin considerations place the case out of the
purview of Article 765 of the New Civil Code.