VELASCO vs. CUSI, JR. and THE CITY OF DAVAO
G.R. No. L-33507
July 20, 1981
FACTS: Petitioner filed in the CFI of Davao an action against Davao City to quiet title to her Lot 77-B-2, a portion of which she claims to having been occupied illegally as part of Bolton Street, Davao City.
On a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the Court, presided over by respondent Judge Cusi Jr., dismissed the case. The allegations in the complaint that the Bolton Street encroached on the lot of the plaintiff and that the defendant had continuously occupied the portion so encroached upon do not, contrary to the conclusion of the plaintiff found in the complaint, cast ‘ . . a cloud of doubt on the title of the plaintiff over said portion which would justify this action.
Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking a review of the Order of dismissal
ISSUE: WON Boston st. is an easement and a legal encumbrance on petitioner’s lot.
HELD: WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been found in the Order complained of, the same is hereby AFFIRMED, and the instant petition, dismissed
YES
Section 39 of Act 496:
Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree or registration, and every subsequent purchasers of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrances, except those noted on said certificate, and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting namely:
xxx xxx xxx
Third. Any public highway, way, private way, … or any government irrigation
XX
It appears on the face of the complaint that Bolton Street has been where it is from time immemorial. Bolton Street constituted an easement of public highway on subject Lot No. 77, from which petitioner’s lot was taken, when the said bigger lot was original registered. It remained as such legal encumbrance, as effectively as if it had been duly noted , or notwithstanding the lack of an annotation, on the certificate of title, by virtue of the clear and express provision of Section 39 of Act 496, it being admitted that at the time of the registration of Lot 77, the public highway was already in existence or subsisting
NOTES:
Bolton Street cannot be a discontinuous easement as she claims it to be, which may not be acquired by prescription. Nonetheless, whether the mode of acquisition of the easement that Bolton Street is, would be only by virtue of title, as petitioner contends, this is not material or of any consequence. The action is to quiet title and damages; but the complaint does not allege any cloud or doubt on the title
case digests 