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:

Lim vs. CA Digest

January 24, 2000 Facts In 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Surviving spouse Rufina filed a petition for administration of his estate. The properties of respondent corporations (Auto Truck et. al.) were

Read More »

Rizal Cement v. Villareal Digest

“A True Owner Reacts” Facts Private (R) Villlareal et. al. filed with CFI Rizal Application for Registration, alleging that they acquired the two agricultural lands by purchase from spouses Cervo, no encumbrance,

Read More »

Newsweek vs. IAC

Facts In 1981, the respondent association of sugarcane planters filed a class suit in representation of 8,500 members alleging libel against Newsweek Inc., and two of its reporters. Newsweek is a foreign

Read More »


The primary legal source for domestic adoption in the Philippines is RA 8552. Its short name is Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 and its complete name is AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RULES

Read More »


The purpose of including such provision in our [laws] is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people – Republic v Molina

Read More »