Castro v. Esperanza

Summary

This case involves a property dispute between neighboring lot owners over access rights to a foot path. The Esperanza spouses sought mandatory injunction against the Castro spouses who constructed a fence blocking their access to a foot path leading to the national highway. The Supreme Court affirmed that the foot path was a voluntary easement created by the original owner Nestor Reluya, covered by its own title, and that the Castro spouses, who only owned adjoining lots, had no authority to close it off. The Court distinguished voluntary easements from compulsory ones, holding that voluntary easements are not extinguished merely by the availability of alternative routes. The decision protects established property rights and emphasizes that voluntary easements survive even when alternative access becomes available, affirming the principle that property owners cannot unilaterally terminate easements they did not create.