Lex Rex Ph

Aneco Realty v. Landex Development Digest

“I Won’t Demolish My Walls”

G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008

Petitioner Aneco bought 22 lots and Landex 17 lots from the same developer. Landex started construction of a concrete wall on one of its lots. Aneco filed complaints against Landex with the RTC of QC for injunction and for demolition of the newly built walls, and hold Landex liable for 2 million pesos in damages.

(P) Aneco(R) Landex
Demolish your wall

Pay us 2 million in damages
You’re not deprived of access. You have three. But you built a building at the Resthaven access.

You bought ordinary lots, not subdivision lots because the seller (FHDI) was not interested to pursue a subdivision.
  • RTC granted the complaint for injunction. Favored Aneco.
  • RTC granted MR of Landex. “Don’t demolish the walls, Aneco”
  • Reason: The property never existed as  a subdivision. Aneco’s property has access to public road. It’s not isolated. Can easily make an access road within its property. Right of way denied.
  • Aneco appealed to CA.

CA affirmed RTC. Favored Landex.

  • Aneco knew that the lots they bought were no longer subdivision lots
  • The subject property ceased to be a road lot when its former owner (Fernandez Hermanos, Inc.) sold it to appellant Aneco not as subdivision lots and without the intention of pursuing the subdivision project. The law in point is Article 624 of the New Civil Code.
  • Aneco failed to prove the essential requisites to avail compulsory easement right of way.

Aneco filed to SC:
SC: Aneco’s petition has no merit.

Does Landex have the right to build a concrete wall around his property? YES.

What is involved here is an undue interference on the property rights of a landowner to build a concrete wall on his own property. It is a simple case of a neighbor, petitioner Aneco, seeking to restrain a landowner, respondent Landex, from fencing his own land.

Article 430 of the Civil Code gives every owner the right to enclose or fence his land or tenement by means of walls, ditches, hedges or any other means. The right to fence flows from the right of ownership. As owner of the land, Landex may fence his property subject only to the limitations and restrictions provided by law. Absent a clear legal and enforceable right, as here, We will not interfere with the exercise of an essential attribute of ownership.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Ong vs. CA Digest

Facts Petitioner Edward Ong represented ARMAGRI Corp., applied for a letter of credit for P2.5M with SOLIDBANK Corp, executed and signed alone the trust receipt

Read More »

Criminal Negligence

Imprudence is an act of carelessness (reckless imprudence) which, had it been intentional, would otherwise constitute a felony (Article 365 of RPC): If grave felony:

Read More »

Living Law

It is high time to amend our Civil and Family Laws to conform to societal sentiment and breathe life to what Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Read More »


is the person who delivers a non-consumable thing for the use of a bailee in a certain period of time without compensation for its use.

Read More »