PURUGGANAN V. PAREDES, 69 SCRA 69- Easement of Drainage
In an easement of receiving rainwater, the distances prescribed in the decree of registration should not correspond to the width and length of the roof of the house but on the distance of the rainwater falling inside the land of the servient estate.
FACTS:
Purugganan is the owner of a piece of residential lot adjacent to and bounded on the north by the lot of Paredes. The lot of Purugganan is subject to an easement of drainage in favor of Paredes annotated in the Decree of registration, which read in part:
“XXX the applicant agrees to respect an easement or servitude over a portion of the lots No. 1 and 2 which is EIGHT and ONE HALF (8-1/2) meters in length…and the width is ONE (1) meter, in order that the rainwater coming from the roofing of a house to be constructed by the oppositor over the ruins of her brick wall…shall fall into the land of the applicant.”
Paredes constructed a new house, the roof was 2-1/2 meters longer than the length allowed in the Decree of Registration, and has an outer roofing (eaves) of 1.20 meters, protruding over the lot of Purugganan, which is .20 meters wider than that allowed, and the rainwater from the GI roofing falls about 3 meters inside lots 1 and 2 of Purugganan.
Purugganan filed a case prohibiting Paredes from proceeding with the construction of the roof, which exceeds the allowed dimensions. Trial court, in a summary proceeding decided in favor of Purugganan. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of drainage refers to the measure of the roofing?
HELD: No.
Paredes have made a mistake in applying the distances prescribed in the decree of registration to the roofing of their house. They failed to comprehend the meaning of the phrase “servidumbre de vertiente de los tejados” constituted on the land of Purugganan. Translated, it means the easement of receiving water falling from the roof which is an encumbrance imposed on the land of Purugganan because the encumbrance is not the roof itself but the rain water falling inside the property of Purugganan. The report submitted by the court-appointed commissioner clearly shows that Paredes exceeded the dimension allowed in the decree of registration.
