Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lauro owns an agricultural land planted mostly with fruit trees. Hernando owns
an adjacent land devoted to his piggery business, which is two (2) meters higher
in elevation. Although Hernando has constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his
piggery, it is inadequate to contain the waste water containing pig manure, and it
often overflows and inundates Lauros plantation. This has increased the acidity
of the soil in the plantation, causing the trees to wither and die. Lauro sues for
damages caused to his plantation. Hernando invokes his right to the benefit of a
natural easement in favor of his higher estate, which imposes upon the lower
estate of Lauro the obligation to receive the waters descending from the higher
estate. Is Hernando correct? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauros land is burdened with the natural
easement to accept or receive the water which naturally and without interruption
of man descends from a higher estate to a lower estate. However, Hernando has
constructed a waste disposal lagoon for his piggery and it is this waste water that
flows downward to Lauros land. Hernando has, thus, interrupted the flow of
water and has created and is maintaining a nuisance. Under Act. 697 NCC,
abatement of a nuisance does not preclude recovery of damages by Lauro even
for the past existence of a nuisance.
The claim for damages may also be premised in Art. 2191to time. As Tomas'
business grows, the need for use of (4) NCC.
ANOTHER ANSWER: Hernando is not correct. Article 637 of the New Civil Code
provides that the owner of the higher estate cannot make works which will
increase the burden on the servient estate. (Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA,
330 SCRA 145 [2000]). The owner of the higher estate may be compelled to pay
damages to the owner of the lower estate.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of the lis pendens was still annotated
at the back of the title at the time he both the land from Bart. The uncancelled
notice of lis pendens operates as constructive notice of its contents as well as
interests, legal or equitable included therein. All persons are charged with the
knowledge of what it contains.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim remains
effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from its inscription
in the registry. This ruling is even more applicable in a lis pendens.
Carlo, is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sanchos share in the coownership in the land is concerned because the land was transferred to him
during the pendency of the appeal .
A. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing his appeal; asking the
Court of Appeals to order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of
Carlos; and by invoking his right of redemption of Barts share under article 1620
of the NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. Carlos is a purchaser in good faith. A possessor in good faith has been
defined as one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates the
acquisition of the thing (Article 526, NCC). Good faith consists in the
possessors belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the
owner of the same and could convey his title. In the case, in question, while
Carlos bought the subject property from Bart while a notice of lis pendens was
still annotated thereon, there was also an existing court order cancelling the
same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as being aware of a flaw, the notice
of lis pendens, was already being ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase.
On this ground alone, Carlos can already be considered a buyer in good faith.
B. To protect his right over the subject property, Pacifico should have timely filed
am action for reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis pendens.
2. The action will not prosper because more than 10 years has already elapsed
from the time of the opening of the windows, Bernies right of action has already
prescribed.
3. This is not tantamount to saying that Adelaida has already acquired an
easement of light and view. Under the Civil Code, nobody can prevent Bernie
from obstructing Adelaidas light and view by constructing a building on his lot or
by raising a wall thereon contiguous to the windows of Adelaida.