North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo

a. Easements in General — Classifications: as to recipient of benefit

Subject Home

16px

← Back to week overview

Primary source ↗Next: Ronquillo v. RocoNext case→

Case DigestChapter VII — Easement or Servitudes

North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo

G.R. No. 42334 · October 31, 1936 · Supreme Court

a. Easements in General — Classifications: as to recipient of benefit

Gist

A sugar central built a road across its own land to the provincial highway and let the public use it — vehicles on a fifteen-centavo toll, pedestrians free. When a neighbouring tuba vendor kept using it to reach his saloon, the central sued to enjoin him. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the injunction: by throwing the road open on a published condition, the owner had voluntarily constituted an easement of way in favour of a community, and could not capriciously exclude one member of it.

Core Doctrine

The central doctrine is that an easement may be constituted in favour of a community — under the old Civil Code's Article 531, "easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — and that an owner who opens his road to the public on a stated condition has voluntarily constituted exactly that. "Voluntary easements... are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner"; the owner "may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement," and "while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use" — though "the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed."

Facts

On October 12, 1933, plaintiff North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering or passing through its properties, "specially through the 'mill site' of plaintiff's sugar central."
Plaintiff owns the site of its sugar central — its factory building and the residences of its employees and labourers, known as the "mill site" — and the adjoining sugar plantation, Hacienda "Begoña." Across its properties it built a road connecting the "mill site" with the provincial highway.
Through this road plaintiff allowed and still allows vehicles to pass upon payment of a toll charge of ₱0.15 for each truck or automobile, and pedestrians are allowed free passage. This one fact decides the case. Opening the road to everyone on a published condition is the act by which the owner voluntarily constitutes the easement — and it is what distinguishes the road from the "private" property the plaintiff calls it.
Immediately adjoining the mill site is the hacienda of Luciano Aguirre, known as Hacienda "Sañgay," where defendant Hidalgo keeps a billiard hall and a tuba saloon. "Like other people in and about the place, defendant used to pass through the said road of the plaintiff, because it was his only means of access to the Hacienda 'Sañgay.'" (That the road was his only access is the seed of the second, independent holding: a legal right of way under old Article 564.)
By the plaintiff's order, its gatekeeper stopped the defendant whenever he passed driving his automobile with a cargo of tuba; in such cases the defendant "merely deviated from said road and continued on his way to Hacienda 'Sañgay' across the fields of Hacienda 'Begoña,'" the same passageway "frequented by carabaos." The plaintiff sought to bar him not only from the toll road but from the open fields where its carabaos roam — which drew the Court's sharpest line: "An act so shocking to the conscience... could only have been perpetrated during the feudal period when human rights were unmercifully sacrificed to property rights."
"The alleged conveyance of tuba to plaintiff's 'mill site' or the sale thereof within its property has not been established by the evidence adduced in this case. This the plaintiff admits in its brief." Nor was there "any evidence to show that the defendant actually created disturbance in plaintiff's properties."
To obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction below, the plaintiff had sworn that the defendant "caused trouble among the peaceful people of the place" and persisted in "disturbing public order and molesting plaintiff's employees and their families" — allegations "which later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove." After the writ issued, the plaintiff amended its complaint by deleting those very allegations, "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
The amended complaint's remaining grievance was that the defendant insists on passing through to take tuba to Hacienda "Sañgay," and that plaintiff "does not want to allow the entry of the defendant in any part of its estate... in order to avert any friction or ill-feeling against him." (On which the Court observed that a suit to avert "friction or ill-feeling" asks the courts for "a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum.")
The plaintiff's principal witness, gatekeeper Santiago Plagata, testified that to reach Hacienda "Sañgay" the central's property "necessarily" had to be crossed, and that in nine years as watchman he could not say whether any other road gave access to it.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff, as owner of a road it built across its own land but threw open to public use on payment of a toll, may obtain an injunction excluding the defendant — one member of that public — from passing over it.

Ruling

Main issue. NO — the injunction was rightly denied, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The threshold failure is one of proof: here the injunction "constitutes, unlike the auxiliary and subordinate remedy that it ordinarily is, the principal remedy itself," so it may be granted only on proof "not only that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right" — and "[n]one of these requisites is present in the instant case." Passage is not itself unlawful, since "the plaintiff, of its own accord, opened the [road] to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles," and carrying tuba across is no violation "unless the goods' destination be at any point within the confines thereof, or unless the said goods be sold in transit" — neither of which was shown. What the plaintiff really wants enjoined is its own labourers' resort to the saloon, and "[r]ightly and logically, the injunction should be directed against said laborers." The deeper holding is proprietary. Since the toll was never refused, "[w]e, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community," under old Article 531 — "Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — and old Article 594, by which an owner may burden his estate "as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable". The plaintiff "'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general... and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement." Such easements "are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner"; and if a contract be thought necessary, "a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity." The objection that a right of way is discontinuous and needs a title under old Article 539 fails because "[t]he defendant... does not lay claim to it by prescription" — "[t]he title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee." The plaintiff "may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use." Independently, its own evidence "discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay'" under old Article 564, those living there having "no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question." Finally, "[w]hen a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof; consequently, an injunction suit likewise does not lie."

"Wherefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff."

Ratio

Injunction as the principal remedy. Here the writ "constitutes, unlike the auxiliary and subordinate remedy that it ordinarily is, the principal remedy itself," and so should be granted "only... after it has been established not only that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right." "None of these requisites is present in the instant case."
The pleading collapsed. The sworn allegations that won the ex parte writ — trouble-making, disturbing public order, molesting employees — "later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove," and the plaintiff then amended them out, "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
No unlawful act. "Defendant's passage over plaintiff's property does not, of itself, constitute an unlawful act inasmuch as the plaintiff, of its own accord, opened the same to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles. Neither does the mere transportation of tuba over plaintiff's estate amount to a violation of the latter's property rights, unless the goods' destination be at any point within the confines thereof, or unless the said goods be sold in transit" — neither shown.
The real grievance lies elsewhere. The damage sought to be avoided is not the carrying of tuba across the estate, "as there is no causal relation between the act and any resultant damage, but in the fact that tuba is disposed of at the Hacienda 'Sañgay' to which plaintiff's laborers have access." The act complained of "is that committed, not by the defendant, but by plaintiff's own laborers," so "[r]ightly and logically, the injunction should be directed against said laborers."
The road as a public way. "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof; consequently, an injunction suit likewise does not lie." Such roads "are public roads in the sense that they are open to all who see fit to use them, and it is immaterial that the road is subject to gates and bars, or that it is merely a cul de sac."
The classification that names the right. The toll never having been refused, "[w]e, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community," resting on Article 531 — "Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — and Article 594 — "The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he does not violate the law or public order."
The owner is held to his own act. "As may be seen from the language of article 594, in cases of voluntary easement, the owner is given ample liberty to establish them." The plaintiff "'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general, without imposing any condition save the payment of a fifteen-centavo toll by motor vehicles, and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
No contract is needed. "Voluntary easements under article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner. If he exacts any condition, like the payment of a certain indemnity for the use of the easement, any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement." And if a contract be insisted on, "a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity."
Answer to the "discontinuous easement" objection. The plaintiff urged that a right of way "is intermittent in nature and can only be acquired by virtue of a title under article 539." But "[t]he defendant... does not lay claim to it by prescription. The title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor vehicles." Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas (22 Phil. 450) and Cuaycong v. Benedicto (37 Phil. 781) "are not controlling, as there the attempt was to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription."
The owner's residual power, and its limit. "Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
An independent legal easement. "Furthermore, plaintiff's evidence discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay' under the Civil Code, article 564, because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda 'Sañgay' have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question" — established by the plaintiff's own gatekeeper.
Equity refuses the writ. An injunction "will not be granted when good conscience does not require it, where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice"; a court of equity "may interfere by injunction to restrain a party from enforcing a legal right against all equity and conscience." Since the plaintiff sought to bar the defendant even from the carabao fields of Hacienda "Begoña," "[i]f an injunction should lie in the instant case, it should be in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff."
The action's own frivolity. Suing to avert "friction or ill-feeling" against the defendant "attempts to intrust to [the courts] a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum."

Doctrine

Classification by Recipient of Benefit (Art. 614, old Art. 531): Besides the ordinary real or praedial easement, which burdens one tenement for the benefit of another tenement, an easement may be established "for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — a personal easement, with a beneficiary but no dominant estate.
Dedication Creates the Servitude (Art. 688, old Art. 594): An owner may burden his land "as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable." One who opens his road to the public on a stated condition has constituted an easement in favour of that community and "may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
Voluntary Easements Are Not Contractual: They "constitute the act of the owner." Where the owner exacts a condition, "any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement"; if a contract is thought necessary, it exists from the moment the user is disposed to pay.
The Owner's Act Is the "Title" (Art. 622, old Art. 539): A right of way is discontinuous and cannot be prescribed; but that rule is no obstacle where the claimant relies not on use but on the owner's own offer of the road to the public. That offer is the title the article requires.
Open Road, No Trespass: "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof," and it is immaterial that the road has gates and bars or is a cul de sac.
No Capricious Exclusion: The owner "may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed," but "while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
A Concurrent Legal Easement (Art. 649, old Art. 564): Where the neighbours "have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question," a forcible right of way exists in their favour independently of any dedication.

Equity supplies a further limit. An injunction "will not be granted when good conscience does not require it, where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice"; and a plaintiff whose real complaint is against its own labourers cannot obtain a writ against a stranger who has done it no legal wrong.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT. North Negros Sugar Co. built a road across its own land linking its "mill site" to the provincial highway and opened it to all comers — motor vehicles on a ₱0.15 toll, pedestrians free. Defendant Hidalgo, who kept a billiard hall and tuba saloon on the adjoining Hacienda "Sañgay," used the road as his only access, and the central sued to enjoin him. The Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros denied the injunction and the Supreme Court affirmed. The central doctrine is that this was "an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community" under old Article 531 and old Article 594: such easements "are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner," the owner "may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement," and "while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On October 12, 1933, plaintiff North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros praying for an injunction "restraining the defendant from entering or passing through the properties of the plaintiff, specially through the 'mill site' of plaintiff's sugar central."
Plaintiff owns the site of its sugar central "with its factory building and residence for its employees and laborers, known as the 'mill site,'" and the adjoining sugar plantation, Hacienda "Begoña."
"Across its properties the plaintiff constructed a road connecting the 'mill site' with the provincial highway. Through this road plaintiff allowed and still allows vehicles to pass upon payment of a toll charge of ₱0.15 for each truck or automobile. Pedestrians are allowed free passage through it."
Immediately adjoining the mill site is the hacienda of Luciano Aguirre, known as Hacienda "Sañgay," where the defendant keeps "a billiard hall and a tuba saloon."
"Like other people in and about the place, defendant used to pass through the said road of the plaintiff, because it was his only means of access to the Hacienda 'Sañgay' where he runs his billiard hall and tuba saloon."
By plaintiff's order, "every time that the defendant passed driving his automobile with a cargo of tuba plaintiff['s] gatekeeper would stop him and prevent him from passing through said road," whereupon the defendant "merely deviated from said road and continued on his way to Hacienda 'Sañgay' across the fields of Hacienda 'Begoña,'" a passageway "frequented by carabaos."
"The alleged conveyance of tuba to plaintiff's 'mill site' or the sale thereof within its property has not been established by the evidence adduced in this case. This the plaintiff admits in its brief." "Neither is there any evidence to show that the defendant actually created disturbance in plaintiff's properties, including its 'mill site.'"
To obtain the ex parte preliminary injunction, plaintiff swore that the defendant "caused trouble among the peaceful people of the place" and persisted in "disturbing public order and molesting plaintiff's employees and their families" — allegations that "later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove."
After obtaining the writ, plaintiff amended its complaint by eliminating those very allegations, leaving as its only grievance that the defendant insists on passing through to take tuba to Hacienda "Sañgay," and that it "does not want to allow the entry of the defendant in any part of its estate... in order to avert any friction or ill-feeling against him."
Plaintiff's principal witness, gatekeeper Santiago Plagata, testified that to go to Hacienda "Sañgay" the central's property must necessarily be crossed, and that in nine years as watchman he could not say whether any other road gave access there.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Plaintiff-Appellant (North Negros Sugar Co., Inc.)

Plaintiff invoked "its sacred property rights," contending that the road and the mill site are its private property; that it had prohibited the defendant from bringing tuba in; that it wished to exclude him "in order to avert any friction or ill-feeling against him"; and that an easement of way "is intermittent in nature and can only be acquired by virtue of a title under article 539," so that no easement could have arisen in the defendant's favour.

B. Defendant-Appellee (Hidalgo)

Defendant's position was that "while the road in question remains open to the public, he has a right to its use upon paying the passage fees required by the plaintiff" — he did not claim the easement by prescription.

C. Common Ground

It was not contended that the defendant ever refused to pay the tolls; and the plaintiff admitted in its brief that neither the conveyance of tuba into the mill site nor its sale within the property had been established.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff may obtain an injunction excluding the defendant from a road built on its own land but thrown open to public use upon payment of a toll.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

NO. The requisites of injunction are unmet — "[n]one of these requisites is present in the instant case" — and, more fundamentally, "[w]e, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community" under Article 531 and Article 594. The plaintiff "'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general, without imposing any condition save the payment of a fifteen-centavo toll by motor vehicles, and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement." Such easements "are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner." The Article 539 objection fails because "[t]he defendant... does not lay claim to it by prescription"; "[t]he title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee." "Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use." Independently, plaintiff's evidence "discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay' under the Civil Code, article 564."

"Wherefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

The remedy's standard. The injunction here "constitutes, unlike the auxiliary and subordinate remedy that it ordinarily is, the principal remedy itself," and may issue only on proof "not only that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right." "None of these requisites is present."
The plaintiff pleaded away its own case. The sworn allegations that secured the ex parte writ were eliminated by amendment, the plaintiff "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
Passage is lawful. "Defendant's passage over plaintiff's property does not, of itself, constitute an unlawful act inasmuch as the plaintiff, of its own accord, opened the same to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles."
Carrying tuba is lawful. "Neither does the mere transportation of tuba over plaintiff's estate amount to a violation of the latter's property rights, unless the goods' destination be at any point within the confines thereof, or unless the said goods be sold in transit to the laborers and employees of the plaintiff" — which the plaintiff admits was not shown.
The wrong defendant. The damage feared arises "in the fact that tuba is disposed of at the Hacienda 'Sañgay' to which plaintiff's laborers have access"; the act complained of "is that committed, not by the defendant, but by plaintiff's own laborers," so "[r]ightly and logically, the injunction should be directed against said laborers."
Open road, no trespass. "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof; consequently, an injunction suit likewise does not lie." Such roads "are public roads in the sense that they are open to all who see fit to use them, and it is immaterial that the road is subject to gates and bars, or that it is merely a cul de sac."
The servitude and its class. "We, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community," on Article 531 ("Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong") and Article 594 ("The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he does not violate the law or public order").
Legality of the constitution. "There is nothing in the constitution of this easement in violation of law or public order, except perhaps that the right to open roads and charge passage fees therefor i[s] the State's by right of sovereignty"; but that "would affect the right of the plaintiff to charge tolls, but not that of the defendant or of any other person to make use of the easement."
The owner bound by his own act. "As may be seen from the language of article 594, in cases of voluntary easement, the owner is given ample liberty to establish them: 'as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable.' The plaintiff 'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general... and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
Not contractual. "Voluntary easements under article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner. If he exacts any condition, like the payment of a certain indemnity for the use of the easement, any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement. If the contention be made that a contract is necessary, it may be stated that a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity."
Prescription is not in issue. "The defendant, however, does not lay claim to it by prescription. The title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor vehicles." Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas and Cuaycong v. Benedicto "are not controlling, as there the attempt was to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription."
The owner's remaining power. "Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
A second, independent easement. "Furthermore, plaintiff's evidence discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay' under the Civil Code, article 564, because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda 'Sañgay' have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question."
Equity. An injunction "will not be granted when good conscience does not require it, where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice"; equity "may interfere by injunction to restrain a party from enforcing a legal right against all equity and conscience." Plaintiff sought to bar the defendant even from crossing the carabao fields of Hacienda "Begoña" — "[a]n act so shocking to the conscience... could only have been perpetrated during the feudal period when human rights were unmercifully sacrificed to property rights" — so that "[i]f an injunction should lie in the instant case, it should be in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff."
A frivolous object. Seeking an injunction to avert "friction or ill-feeling" "attempts to intrust to [the courts] a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Easement in Favour of a Community (Art. 614): A servitude may be constituted for the benefit of a community or of persons to whom the burdened estate does not belong — a personal easement, requiring no dominant tenement.
Dedication as the Constituting Act (Art. 688): The owner may burden his estate "as he may deem fit"; opening a road to the public on a stated condition constitutes the easement, and the owner cannot afterwards deny it.
Non-Contractual Character: Voluntary easements "constitute the act of the owner"; any person willing to meet the owner's condition may use the easement.
The Owner's Offer Is the "Title" (Art. 622): A right of way, being discontinuous, cannot be prescribed — but the owner's own offer to the public supplies the title the law requires.
No Trespass on an Open Road: No action for trespass, and hence no injunction, lies against one who uses a private road thrown open to public use — gates, bars, or a cul de sac notwithstanding.
Closure Yes, Caprice No: The owner may close the road at pleasure where no period was fixed, but may not "capriciously exclude" one user while the road stays open.
Concurrent Legal Right of Way (Art. 649): Where neighbours have no other access to the provincial road, a forcible right of way exists in their favour independently.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The easement here is terminable: "the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted." What the owner cannot do is keep the road open and single out one user.
The Court reserved the point that "the right to open roads and charge passage fees therefor i[s] the State's by right of sovereignty and may not be taken over by a private individual without the requisite permit" — which would touch the toll, "but not that of the defendant or of any other person to make use of the easement."
The result might differ had the plaintiff proved the tuba's destination within its own estate, or its sale in transit to the plaintiff's labourers; the Court expressly rests on the absence of that proof.

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
This is the case for "Easements in General — Classifications: as to recipient of benefit." Learn it as the contrast between the real (praedial) easement, whose beneficiary is a dominant estate, and the personal easement recognised by Article 614, whose beneficiary is a person or a community with no dominant estate at all.
The practical marker is that Hidalgo owned no dominant tenement and needed none. He claimed as a member of the public in whose favour the servitude had been constituted — which is what a personal easement means.
Read it against Ronquillo v. Roco on modes of acquisition. Ronquillo shows that a right of way, being discontinuous, can never be prescribed; this case shows how the required title may nevertheless be found — in the servient owner's own act of dedication rather than in any deed.
And note the case carries a second easement in reserve: a legal right of way under Article 649 for Hacienda "Sañgay," proved out of the plaintiff's own witness. A single set of facts can generate a voluntary easement and a legal one at once.

VII. Separate Opinions

LAUREL, J., concurring and dissenting, joined by Chief Justice Avanceña and Justice Diaz. He concurred in the result but did "not... agree to certain conclusions and observations" in the majority opinion. He recognised the plaintiff's right, as owner of a private road, to regulate its use by imposing reasonable restrictions and limitations; but he agreed that the injunction should be refused, reasoning among other things that "the revocation of the judgment of the court below would exclude the defendant alone from the use of the private way while the general public will be permitted to do so" — the defendant being barred "not only from the use of the private premises of the plaintiff, but also from the way left open to the public regardless of whether he is carrying tuba or not" — and "[t]he result being clearly unjust, the extraordinary legal remedy of injunction should not be granted." He also distinguished the plaintiff's right to regulate from the condemnation of "the acts of vandalism of an employee of the plaintiff."

VILLAREAL, J., dissenting, joined by Justice Imperial. He concurred with Justice Laurel so far as Laurel dissented from Justice Recto, but dissented so far as Laurel concurred in the result. He stressed that the defendant "was warned several times not to pass on said road when carrying tuba" to the adjoining hacienda, where he sold it to the plaintiff's workmen "who become intoxicated and unfit for work," and that the warnings were repeatedly disregarded. In his view, if the company "has a right to regulate its use by imposing reasonable restrictions and limitations," then prohibiting its use by one who has repeatedly disregarded those warnings, "thus becoming a persona non grata, is certainly not unjust." To force an owner to admit a person "who has incurred his displeasure" merely because he admits others "cannot under whatever consideration, be just," and denying the remedy leaves the owner "no alternative except either to take the law into its own hands or to close the road to everybody." He would have granted the writ and reversed.

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Recto.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 614, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title VII (Easements of Servitudes), Chapter 1 (Easements in General), Section 1 (Different Kinds of Easements)

Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. (531)

Why it is cited here

The article that classifies easements by the recipient of the benefit, and the one the syllabus assigns this case for. Quoted here in its old-Code form (Article 531): "Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong." The present text reads: "Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong."

The ordinary easement is real or praedial — it burdens one tenement for the benefit of another tenement, and the benefit runs with the dominant estate. This article recognises the other kind: a personal easement, whose beneficiary is a person or a community, with no dominant estate at all.

That is what makes the case work. Hidalgo owned no dominant tenement and needed none: the beneficiary of the servitude was the public that used the road, and he could claim as one of them.

Civil Code

Article 688, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title VII (Easements of Servitudes), Chapter 3 (Voluntary Easements)

Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish thereon the easements which he may deem suitable, and in the manner and form which he may deem best, provided he does not contravene the laws, public policy or public order. (594)

Why it is cited here

The freedom that lets an owner create such a servitude, quoted here as old Article 594: "The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he does not violate the law or public order." The present text: "Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish thereon the easements which he may deem suitable, and in the manner and form which he may deem best."

The Court reads the liberty literally and then holds the owner to it. The plaintiff "'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general, without imposing any condition save the payment of a fifteen-centavo toll by motor vehicles, and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."

And it corrects a common assumption: "Voluntary easements under article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner." No agreement is needed — but if one is insisted on, "a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity."

Civil Code

Article 622, Civil Code

Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title. (539)

Why it is cited here

The plaintiff's best argument, and why it misses. It contended that a right of way is discontinuous and so, under old Article 539 (now Article 622), acquirable "only by virtue of a title" — never by use.

The answer is that the defendant never claimed by use: "The defendant, however, does not lay claim to it by prescription." The article is satisfied, not evaded — "[t]he title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor vehicles." The owner's own act of dedication is the title.

This is why Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas and Cuaycong v. Benedicto "are not controlling": in both "the attempt was to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription." Read this case beside Ronquillo v. Roco, which is the prescription case — together they mark the line between the mode that fails and the mode that works.

Civil Code

Article 649, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title VII (Easements of Servitudes), Chapter 2 (Legal Easements), Section 3 (Easement of Right of Way)

The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.

In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.

This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a)

Why it is cited here

An independent ground the Court adds, quoted as old Article 564: a forcible (legal) right of way in favour of the owner and occupants of Hacienda "Sañgay," "because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda 'Sañgay' have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question."

Note where the proof came from: the plaintiff's own principal witness, the gatekeeper Santiago Plagata, testified that to reach Hacienda "Sañgay" one must necessarily cross the central's property, and could not say in nine years whether any other road existed.

So the case carries two independent easements. The voluntary one, in favour of the community, arises from the owner's dedication; the legal one arises from the isolation of the neighbouring hacienda. Either alone defeats the injunction.

Cited laws & provisions

Article 614, Civil Code

Civil Code

Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong. (531)

Why it is cited here

That is what makes the case work. Hidalgo owned no dominant tenement and needed none: the beneficiary of the servitude was the public that used the road, and he could claim as one of them.

Full entry below ↓

Article 688, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title VII (Easements of Servitudes), Chapter 3 (Voluntary Easements)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 622, Civil Code

Civil Code

Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title. (539)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 649, Civil Code

Civil Code

This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a)

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Facts

On October 12, 1933, plaintiff North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering or passing through its properties, "specially through the 'mill site' of plaintiff's sugar central."
Plaintiff owns the site of its sugar central — its factory building and the residences of its employees and labourers, known as the "mill site" — and the adjoining sugar plantation, Hacienda "Begoña." Across its properties it built a road connecting the "mill site" with the provincial highway.
Through this road plaintiff allowed and still allows vehicles to pass upon payment of a toll charge of ₱0.15 for each truck or automobile, and pedestrians are allowed free passage. This one fact decides the case. Opening the road to everyone on a published condition is the act by which the owner voluntarily constitutes the easement — and it is what distinguishes the road from the "private" property the plaintiff calls it.
Immediately adjoining the mill site is the hacienda of Luciano Aguirre, known as Hacienda "Sañgay," where defendant Hidalgo keeps a billiard hall and a tuba saloon. "Like other people in and about the place, defendant used to pass through the said road of the plaintiff, because it was his only means of access to the Hacienda 'Sañgay.'" (That the road was his only access is the seed of the second, independent holding: a legal right of way under old Article 564.)
By the plaintiff's order, its gatekeeper stopped the defendant whenever he passed driving his automobile with a cargo of tuba; in such cases the defendant "merely deviated from said road and continued on his way to Hacienda 'Sañgay' across the fields of Hacienda 'Begoña,'" the same passageway "frequented by carabaos." The plaintiff sought to bar him not only from the toll road but from the open fields where its carabaos roam — which drew the Court's sharpest line: "An act so shocking to the conscience... could only have been perpetrated during the feudal period when human rights were unmercifully sacrificed to property rights."
"The alleged conveyance of tuba to plaintiff's 'mill site' or the sale thereof within its property has not been established by the evidence adduced in this case. This the plaintiff admits in its brief." Nor was there "any evidence to show that the defendant actually created disturbance in plaintiff's properties."
To obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction below, the plaintiff had sworn that the defendant "caused trouble among the peaceful people of the place" and persisted in "disturbing public order and molesting plaintiff's employees and their families" — allegations "which later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove." After the writ issued, the plaintiff amended its complaint by deleting those very allegations, "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
The amended complaint's remaining grievance was that the defendant insists on passing through to take tuba to Hacienda "Sañgay," and that plaintiff "does not want to allow the entry of the defendant in any part of its estate... in order to avert any friction or ill-feeling against him." (On which the Court observed that a suit to avert "friction or ill-feeling" asks the courts for "a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum.")
The plaintiff's principal witness, gatekeeper Santiago Plagata, testified that to reach Hacienda "Sañgay" the central's property "necessarily" had to be crossed, and that in nine years as watchman he could not say whether any other road gave access to it.

Issue

Ruling

"Wherefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff."

Ratio

Injunction as the principal remedy. Here the writ "constitutes, unlike the auxiliary and subordinate remedy that it ordinarily is, the principal remedy itself," and so should be granted "only... after it has been established not only that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right." "None of these requisites is present in the instant case."
The pleading collapsed. The sworn allegations that won the ex parte writ — trouble-making, disturbing public order, molesting employees — "later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove," and the plaintiff then amended them out, "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
No unlawful act. "Defendant's passage over plaintiff's property does not, of itself, constitute an unlawful act inasmuch as the plaintiff, of its own accord, opened the same to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles. Neither does the mere transportation of tuba over plaintiff's estate amount to a violation of the latter's property rights, unless the goods' destination be at any point within the confines thereof, or unless the said goods be sold in transit" — neither shown.
The real grievance lies elsewhere. The damage sought to be avoided is not the carrying of tuba across the estate, "as there is no causal relation between the act and any resultant damage, but in the fact that tuba is disposed of at the Hacienda 'Sañgay' to which plaintiff's laborers have access." The act complained of "is that committed, not by the defendant, but by plaintiff's own laborers," so "[r]ightly and logically, the injunction should be directed against said laborers."
The road as a public way. "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof; consequently, an injunction suit likewise does not lie." Such roads "are public roads in the sense that they are open to all who see fit to use them, and it is immaterial that the road is subject to gates and bars, or that it is merely a cul de sac."
The classification that names the right. The toll never having been refused, "[w]e, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community," resting on Article 531 — "Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — and Article 594 — "The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he does not violate the law or public order."
The owner is held to his own act. "As may be seen from the language of article 594, in cases of voluntary easement, the owner is given ample liberty to establish them." The plaintiff "'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general, without imposing any condition save the payment of a fifteen-centavo toll by motor vehicles, and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
No contract is needed. "Voluntary easements under article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner. If he exacts any condition, like the payment of a certain indemnity for the use of the easement, any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement." And if a contract be insisted on, "a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity."
Answer to the "discontinuous easement" objection. The plaintiff urged that a right of way "is intermittent in nature and can only be acquired by virtue of a title under article 539." But "[t]he defendant... does not lay claim to it by prescription. The title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor vehicles." Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas (22 Phil. 450) and Cuaycong v. Benedicto (37 Phil. 781) "are not controlling, as there the attempt was to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription."
The owner's residual power, and its limit. "Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
An independent legal easement. "Furthermore, plaintiff's evidence discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay' under the Civil Code, article 564, because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda 'Sañgay' have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question" — established by the plaintiff's own gatekeeper.
Equity refuses the writ. An injunction "will not be granted when good conscience does not require it, where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice"; a court of equity "may interfere by injunction to restrain a party from enforcing a legal right against all equity and conscience." Since the plaintiff sought to bar the defendant even from the carabao fields of Hacienda "Begoña," "[i]f an injunction should lie in the instant case, it should be in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff."
The action's own frivolity. Suing to avert "friction or ill-feeling" against the defendant "attempts to intrust to [the courts] a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum."

Doctrine

Classification by Recipient of Benefit (Art. 614, old Art. 531): Besides the ordinary real or praedial easement, which burdens one tenement for the benefit of another tenement, an easement may be established "for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong" — a personal easement, with a beneficiary but no dominant estate.
Dedication Creates the Servitude (Art. 688, old Art. 594): An owner may burden his land "as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable." One who opens his road to the public on a stated condition has constituted an easement in favour of that community and "may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
Voluntary Easements Are Not Contractual: They "constitute the act of the owner." Where the owner exacts a condition, "any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement"; if a contract is thought necessary, it exists from the moment the user is disposed to pay.
The Owner's Act Is the "Title" (Art. 622, old Art. 539): A right of way is discontinuous and cannot be prescribed; but that rule is no obstacle where the claimant relies not on use but on the owner's own offer of the road to the public. That offer is the title the article requires.
Open Road, No Trespass: "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof," and it is immaterial that the road has gates and bars or is a cul de sac.
No Capricious Exclusion: The owner "may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed," but "while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
A Concurrent Legal Easement (Art. 649, old Art. 564): Where the neighbours "have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question," a forcible right of way exists in their favour independently of any dedication.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On October 12, 1933, plaintiff North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros praying for an injunction "restraining the defendant from entering or passing through the properties of the plaintiff, specially through the 'mill site' of plaintiff's sugar central."
Plaintiff owns the site of its sugar central "with its factory building and residence for its employees and laborers, known as the 'mill site,'" and the adjoining sugar plantation, Hacienda "Begoña."
"Across its properties the plaintiff constructed a road connecting the 'mill site' with the provincial highway. Through this road plaintiff allowed and still allows vehicles to pass upon payment of a toll charge of ₱0.15 for each truck or automobile. Pedestrians are allowed free passage through it."
Immediately adjoining the mill site is the hacienda of Luciano Aguirre, known as Hacienda "Sañgay," where the defendant keeps "a billiard hall and a tuba saloon."
"Like other people in and about the place, defendant used to pass through the said road of the plaintiff, because it was his only means of access to the Hacienda 'Sañgay' where he runs his billiard hall and tuba saloon."
By plaintiff's order, "every time that the defendant passed driving his automobile with a cargo of tuba plaintiff['s] gatekeeper would stop him and prevent him from passing through said road," whereupon the defendant "merely deviated from said road and continued on his way to Hacienda 'Sañgay' across the fields of Hacienda 'Begoña,'" a passageway "frequented by carabaos."
"The alleged conveyance of tuba to plaintiff's 'mill site' or the sale thereof within its property has not been established by the evidence adduced in this case. This the plaintiff admits in its brief." "Neither is there any evidence to show that the defendant actually created disturbance in plaintiff's properties, including its 'mill site.'"
To obtain the ex parte preliminary injunction, plaintiff swore that the defendant "caused trouble among the peaceful people of the place" and persisted in "disturbing public order and molesting plaintiff's employees and their families" — allegations that "later turned out to be untrue, or, at least, beyond the capacity of plaintiff to prove."
After obtaining the writ, plaintiff amended its complaint by eliminating those very allegations, leaving as its only grievance that the defendant insists on passing through to take tuba to Hacienda "Sañgay," and that it "does not want to allow the entry of the defendant in any part of its estate... in order to avert any friction or ill-feeling against him."
Plaintiff's principal witness, gatekeeper Santiago Plagata, testified that to go to Hacienda "Sañgay" the central's property must necessarily be crossed, and that in nine years as watchman he could not say whether any other road gave access there.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Plaintiff-Appellant (North Negros Sugar Co., Inc.)

B. Defendant-Appellee (Hidalgo)

C. Common Ground

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff may obtain an injunction excluding the defendant from a road built on its own land but thrown open to public use upon payment of a toll.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

"Wherefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

The remedy's standard. The injunction here "constitutes, unlike the auxiliary and subordinate remedy that it ordinarily is, the principal remedy itself," and may issue only on proof "not only that the right sought to be protected exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right." "None of these requisites is present."
The plaintiff pleaded away its own case. The sworn allegations that secured the ex parte writ were eliminated by amendment, the plaintiff "overlook[ing] the fact that the allegation it availed of to obtain a preliminary injunction was necessary to secure one of a permanent character."
Passage is lawful. "Defendant's passage over plaintiff's property does not, of itself, constitute an unlawful act inasmuch as the plaintiff, of its own accord, opened the same to the public conditioned only upon the payment of transit fees by motor vehicles."
Carrying tuba is lawful. "Neither does the mere transportation of tuba over plaintiff's estate amount to a violation of the latter's property rights, unless the goods' destination be at any point within the confines thereof, or unless the said goods be sold in transit to the laborers and employees of the plaintiff" — which the plaintiff admits was not shown.
The wrong defendant. The damage feared arises "in the fact that tuba is disposed of at the Hacienda 'Sañgay' to which plaintiff's laborers have access"; the act complained of "is that committed, not by the defendant, but by plaintiff's own laborers," so "[r]ightly and logically, the injunction should be directed against said laborers."
Open road, no trespass. "When a private road has been thrown open to public use, no action for trespass is maintainable against any person who desires to make use thereof; consequently, an injunction suit likewise does not lie." Such roads "are public roads in the sense that they are open to all who see fit to use them, and it is immaterial that the road is subject to gates and bars, or that it is merely a cul de sac."
The servitude and its class. "We, therefore, have the case of an easement of way voluntarily constituted in favor of a community," on Article 531 ("Easements may also be established for the benefit of one or more persons or of a community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong") and Article 594 ("The owner of an estate may burden it with such easements as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable, provided he does not violate the law or public order").
Legality of the constitution. "There is nothing in the constitution of this easement in violation of law or public order, except perhaps that the right to open roads and charge passage fees therefor i[s] the State's by right of sovereignty"; but that "would affect the right of the plaintiff to charge tolls, but not that of the defendant or of any other person to make use of the easement."
The owner bound by his own act. "As may be seen from the language of article 594, in cases of voluntary easement, the owner is given ample liberty to establish them: 'as he may deem fit, and in such manner and form as he may consider desirable.' The plaintiff 'considered it desirable' to open this road to the public in general... and it may not now go back on this and deny the existence of an easement."
Not contractual. "Voluntary easements under article 594 are not contractual in nature; they constitute the act of the owner. If he exacts any condition, like the payment of a certain indemnity for the use of the easement, any person who is willing to pay it may make use of the easement. If the contention be made that a contract is necessary, it may be stated that a contract exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to pay the required indemnity."
Prescription is not in issue. "The defendant, however, does not lay claim to it by prescription. The title in this case consists in the fact that the plaintiff has offered the use of this road to the general public upon payment of a certain sum as passage fee in case of motor vehicles." Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas and Cuaycong v. Benedicto "are not controlling, as there the attempt was to establish that the right to an easement of way had been acquired by prescription."
The owner's remaining power. "Indeed the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted, but while the road is thrown open, the plaintiff may not capriciously exclude the defendant from its use."
A second, independent easement. "Furthermore, plaintiff's evidence discloses the existence of a forcible right of way in favor of the owner and occupants of the Hacienda 'Sañgay' under the Civil Code, article 564, because, according to said evidence, those living in Hacienda 'Sañgay' have no access to the provincial road except thru the road in question."
Equity. An injunction "will not be granted when good conscience does not require it, where it will operate oppressively or contrary to justice"; equity "may interfere by injunction to restrain a party from enforcing a legal right against all equity and conscience." Plaintiff sought to bar the defendant even from crossing the carabao fields of Hacienda "Begoña" — "[a]n act so shocking to the conscience... could only have been perpetrated during the feudal period when human rights were unmercifully sacrificed to property rights" — so that "[i]f an injunction should lie in the instant case, it should be in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff."
A frivolous object. Seeking an injunction to avert "friction or ill-feeling" "attempts to intrust to [the courts] a mission at once beyond those conferred upon them by the Constitution and the laws, and unbecoming of their dignity and decorum."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Easement in Favour of a Community (Art. 614): A servitude may be constituted for the benefit of a community or of persons to whom the burdened estate does not belong — a personal easement, requiring no dominant tenement.
Dedication as the Constituting Act (Art. 688): The owner may burden his estate "as he may deem fit"; opening a road to the public on a stated condition constitutes the easement, and the owner cannot afterwards deny it.
Non-Contractual Character: Voluntary easements "constitute the act of the owner"; any person willing to meet the owner's condition may use the easement.
The Owner's Offer Is the "Title" (Art. 622): A right of way, being discontinuous, cannot be prescribed — but the owner's own offer to the public supplies the title the law requires.
No Trespass on an Open Road: No action for trespass, and hence no injunction, lies against one who uses a private road thrown open to public use — gates, bars, or a cul de sac notwithstanding.
Closure Yes, Caprice No: The owner may close the road at pleasure where no period was fixed, but may not "capriciously exclude" one user while the road stays open.
Concurrent Legal Right of Way (Art. 649): Where neighbours have no other access to the provincial road, a forcible right of way exists in their favour independently.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The easement here is terminable: "the latter may close it at its pleasure, as no period has been fixed when the easement was voluntarily constituted." What the owner cannot do is keep the road open and single out one user.
The Court reserved the point that "the right to open roads and charge passage fees therefor i[s] the State's by right of sovereignty and may not be taken over by a private individual without the requisite permit" — which would touch the toll, "but not that of the defendant or of any other person to make use of the easement."
The result might differ had the plaintiff proved the tuba's destination within its own estate, or its sale in transit to the plaintiff's labourers; the Court expressly rests on the absence of that proof.

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
This is the case for "Easements in General — Classifications: as to recipient of benefit." Learn it as the contrast between the real (praedial) easement, whose beneficiary is a dominant estate, and the personal easement recognised by Article 614, whose beneficiary is a person or a community with no dominant estate at all.
The practical marker is that Hidalgo owned no dominant tenement and needed none. He claimed as a member of the public in whose favour the servitude had been constituted — which is what a personal easement means.
Read it against Ronquillo v. Roco on modes of acquisition. Ronquillo shows that a right of way, being discontinuous, can never be prescribed; this case shows how the required title may nevertheless be found — in the servient owner's own act of dedication rather than in any deed.
And note the case carries a second easement in reserve: a legal right of way under Article 649 for Hacienda "Sañgay," proved out of the plaintiff's own witness. A single set of facts can generate a voluntary easement and a legal one at once.

VII. Separate Opinions

ABAD SANTOS, J., concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Recto.