ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 137145.
ELLEN ALCAYAGA AND NESTOR SUNGA, PETITIONERS, v. MILAGROS YU, RESPONDENT
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the
Third Division of this Court dated
G.R. No. 137145 (Ellen Alcayaga and Nestor Sunga, Petitioners, v. Milagros Yu, Respondent.)
This petition for review on certiorari
[1]
cralaw
assails the
On 24 June 1981, Spouses Benon and Aurora Sunga sold to respondent Lot 28-A including the three-door apartment situated at the rear portion of the property and the alley which served as passageway to Abucay Street for the occupants of the apartment building. The sellers retained Lot 28-B where a house stands which the petitioners presently occupy.
Respondent claimed that a portion of petitioners' house was encroaching on her lot. Respondent demanded petitioners to vacate and remove the structures encroaching on her lot. However, petitioners did not heed such demands. The parties referred their dispute to the barangay . However, the parties failed to amicably settle the matter. Hence, respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioners.
Petitioners do not deny that certain portions of their house encroach on respondent's property, particularly the alley. Petitioners insist that their deceased parents, Spouses Benon and Aurora Sunga, did not sell to respondent the portion of the alley underneath the living room and mezzanine of the residential house where the stairway platform leading to the entrance door is constructed. Petitioners assert that what was actually sold to respondent was merely the use of such alley.
Petitioners' contention is untenable. The Court finds no serious error warranting the reversal of the decisions of the CA, RTC, and MTC. Petitioners miserably failed to controvert the conclusions of the trial and appellate courts. The Court adopts the following findings of the CA:
Pursuant to the memorandum of encumbrance annotated on TCT No. 72050, the use of the alley as access from Abucay Street to the interior of the land, so long as there is a building thereat, is guaranteed. Moreover, said alley is included in the 146 square meter portion of Lot 28 which was segregated as Lot 28-A and sold to respondent, who was subsequently issued TCT No. 145852 covering said portion.
Worthy of note likewise is the condition annotated on TCT No. 72050 that the alley shall be open to the sky and no permanent obstruction whatsoever shall be placed thereon. Thus, the construction of the mezzanine floor, living room and stairway above the alley was in violation of said condition. Said alley was opened for the benefit of the occupants of the apartment building constructed at the interior of Lot 28 for them to have access to and from Abucay Street, and not for the benefit of the owners/occupants of the residential house fronting said street, inasmuch as the location of their house gives them access to said street. [3] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The Court AFFIRMS the
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with Associate Justices Corona Ibay Somera and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring.
[3] cralaw Rollo , p. 26.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
