Practice question
A naked owner and a separate beneficial owner have not agreed on a proposed perpetual voluntary easement. The naked owner signs alone and argues that Article 689’s rule for noninjurious servitudes eliminates the need for the other owner’s consent in every perpetual case. Which conclusion is correct?
- Any signature by the naked owner always suffices
- Article 690 is irrelevant to perpetual easements
- Beneficial ownership can be ignored whenever the burden is permanent
- A notary can substitute consent for both owners
- Article 690 specifically requires both owners’ consent to a perpetual voluntary easement; the asserted blanket exemption is unsound
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 689-690: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/53360
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.