28.

Aneco vs Landex
[G.R. 165952 July 28, 2008]

FACTS:

- Fernandez Hermanos Development Inc. (FHDI) is the original owner of a tract of

land in San Francisco Del Monte, Q.C.. FHDI subdivided the land into 39 lots. It later
sold 22 lots to Aneco and 17 lots to Landex.
- Landex started the construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots.

PROCEDURE:
- To restrain construction of the wall, Aneco filed a complaint for injunction with RTC
QC.
- Aneco later filed 2 supplemental complaints seeking to demolish the newly built
wall to hold Landex liable for P2M in damages.
- Landex answered saying that Aneco was not deprived access to its lots due to the
construction of the wall given that it has own entrance in the streets around. It also
claimed that FHDI sold ordinary lots not subdivision lots.
- RTD rendered decision granting the complaint for injunction.
- Landex moved for reconsideration.
- Landex failed to include a notice of hearing in its MR as required under Sec 5 Rule 15
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Realizing the defect, Landex later filed motion setting hearing for its MR.
- Aneco countered with a motion for execution claiming that RTC decision is final and
executory.
- RTC denied motion of Aneco, granted MR of Landex and dismissing the complaint
of Aneco. (RA 440 is inapplicable because the lots are not subdivison lots that
needs courts approval for closing roads)
- Aneco appealed to the CA.
- CA affiremed RTC in holding that Aneco knew beforehand that FHDI sold ordinary
lots by express stipulation in the deed of sale that FHDI was no longer interested in
pursuing subdivision project.The easement that used to exist on the subject lot
ceased when Aneco and FHDI agreed that the lots would be consolidated and would
no longer be intended as a subdivision project.
- CA held that Aneco failed to prove the essential requisites to be entitled to a
compulsory easement of way :
1. Dominant estate surrounded by other immovables and
has no adequate outlet highway
2. Proper indemnity has been paid
3. Isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the
dominant estate
4. Right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the
servient estate.
 - Aneco moved for reconsideration but was denied.
- Aneco filed petition y certiorari under Rule 45 to SC

ISSUE/S:
- WoN the RTC and CA erred in liberally applying the rule on notice of hearing under
Sec 5, Rule 15 of the RCP
- WoN Aneco may enjoin Landex from constructing a concrete wall on its own
property.

RULING:
- There is no dispute that the motion for reconsideration of Landex was defective for
which Aneco cites a litany of cases which held that notice of hearing is mandatory.
- Landex asserts that the procedural defect was cured when it filed a motion setting a
hearing for its motion for reconsideration for which Aneco was properly informed.
- SC held that it is within the sound discretion of the court (RTC and CA in this case)
to relax procedural rules in order to fully adjudicate the merits of a case. SC will not
interfere with the exercise of that discretion absent grave abuse or palpable error.
- Section 6, Rule 1, RCP mandates a liberal construction of the rules.
- What the rule forbids is not the mere absence of a notice of hearing in a contested
motion but the unfair surprise caused by the lack of notice.
- In De Borja v Tan the court held what the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be
heard.
- Aneco was afforded procedural due process when it was given an opportunity to
opose the MR; it cannot argue unfair surprise.
- RTC and CA correctly ignored the procedural defect.
- Article 430 NCC gives every owner the right to enclose or fence his land or tenement
by means of walls, ditches, hedges or any other means. Absent a clear legal and
enforeceable right, the court shall not interfere with the exercise of Landexs
ownership.
- No cogent reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusion of law by the
RTC and CA.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Decision AFFIRMED.