Plaintiff: North Negros Sugar Co v Defendant: Hidalgo

FACTS:

• Plaintiff is the owner of a sugar central (known as “mill site”) and also its adjoining
plantation Hacienda “Begona”. He constructed a road adjoining the “mill site” and the provincial
highway. Plaintiff allows vehicles to pass upon paying toll charge of P0.15 for each one; pedestrians
are allowed free passage.

• Defendant owns the adjoining “Hacienda Sangay” wherein he has a billiard hall and a tuba
saloon (as in drinking place). The road of the plaintiff is the only means of access to get to Hacienda
Sangay.

• At one point, plaintiff stopped defendant from using the said road. Hence, instead of taking
the road to get to his Hacienda Sangay, defendant passed through Hacienda Begona in a passageway
used by the carabaos.

• Plaintiff applied for injunction to restrain the defendant from entering/passing through his
properties (road & Hacienda).

ISSUE:

WON injunction should be granted.

HELD: NO.

• For injunction to be granted, it must be established that the right sought to be protected
exists, but also that the acts against which the injunction to be directed are violative of said right.

• In the case at bar, plaintiff failed to establish his right and that the defendant has
committed/attempts to commit acts that endanger such right. The complaint does not state how
and why the mere passage of defendant over plaintiff’s estate conveying “tuba” to his Hacienda has
caused damage to plaintiff’s property rights. The real damage that the plaintiff seeks to avoid is the
fact that tuba is disposed of at defendant’s hacienda in which the plaintiff’s laborers have access
(apparently, the plaintiff hates that his laborers are getting drunk in the tuba saloon of the
defendant). This however, is a nothing more than an exercise of legitimate business on the part of
the defendant. What the law does not authorize to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly (if
plaintiff cannot enjoin defendant from selling tuba, neither can it obtain injunction to prevent him
from passing over its property to transport tuba).

• (TOPICAL: on mode of acquiring easements): The road was constructed by the plaintiff on his
own land and it made this road accessible to the public, regardless of class/group of
persons/entities. This is a voluntary easement constituted in favor of the community. Indeed, the
plaintiff may close the road at its pleasure as no period has been fixed when the easement was
constituted, but while the road is still open, he may not capriciously exclude defendant from its use.
Having the road devoted to the public in general, the road is charged with public interest and while
so devoted, the plaintiff may not establish discriminatory exceptions against any private person. He
may withdraw his grant by discontinuing its use, but so long as he maintains it, he must submit to
the control.

• Furthermore there exists a forcible right of way in favor of the defendant (CC 564) because
those living in Hacienda Sangay have no access to the provincial road except through the road in
question.