Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Property-CD-9 19 16
Property-CD-9 19 16
Property-CD-9 19 16
COURT OF APPEALS
and YOLANDA Q. OLIVEROS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 112331. May 29, 1996]
DOCTRINE:
LEAST DAMAGE > SHORTEST DISTANCE
When the easement may be established on any of several
tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the
way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen.
However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2) circumstances do
not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least
damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.
FACTS:
- Anastacia Quimen, together with her 3 brothers and sister,
inherited a piece of property in Bulacan. They agreed to
subdivide the property equally among themselves. The
shares of Anastacia and 3 other siblings were next to the
municipal road. Anastacias was at the extreme left of the
road while the lots on the right were sold by her brothers to
Catalina Santos. A portion of the lots behind Anastacias
were sold by her (as her brothers adminstratix) brother to
Yolanda.
- Yolanda was hesitant to buy the back property at first
because it d no access to the public road. Anastacia
prevailed upon her by assuring her that she would give her
a right of way on her adjoining property (which was in front)
for p200 per square meter.
- Yolanda constructed a house on the lot she bought using as
her passageway to the public highway a portion of
anastacias property. But when yolanda finally offered to
pay for the use of the pathway anastacia refused to accept
the payment. In fact she was thereafter barred by Anastacia
from passing through her property.
- After a few years, Yolanda purchased another lot from the
Quimens (a brother), located directly behind the property of
her parents who provided her a pathway gratis et amore
between their house, extending about 19m from the lot of
Yolanda behind the sari-sari store of one brother, and
Anastacias perimeter fence.
- In 1987, Yolanda filed an action with the proper court
praying for a right of way through Anastacias property. The
proposed right of way was at the extreme right of
Anastacias property facing the public highway, starting
from the back of the sari-sari store and extending inward by
1m to her property and turning left for about 5m to avoid
the store in order to reach the municipal road. The way was
unobstructed except for an avocado tree standing in the
middle.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of
action, explaining that the right of way through the
brothers property was a straight path and to allow a detour
by cutting through Anastacias property would no longer
make the path straight. They held that it was more practical
to extend the existing pathway to the public road by
removing that portion of the store blocking the path as that
was the shortest route to the public road and the least
prejudicial to the parties concerned than passing through
Anastacias property.
CA reversed and held that Yolanda was entitled to a right of
way on Anastacias property. The court, however, did not
award damages to her and held that Anastacia was not in
bad faith when she resisted the claim.
Anastacia went to the SC alleging that her lot should be
considered as a servient estate despite the fact that it does
not abut or adjoin the property of private respondent. She
denies ever promising Yolonda a right of way.
Anastacia also argues that when Yolanda purchased the
second lot, the easement of right of way she provided was
ipso jure extinguished as a result of the merger of
ownership of the dominant and the servient estates in one
person so that there was no longer any compelling reason
to provide private respondent with a right of way as there
are other surrounding lots suitable for the purpose.
She also strongly maintains that the proposed right of way
is not the shortest access to the public road because of the
detour and that, moreover, she is likely to suffer the most
damage as she derives a net income of P600.00 per year
from the sale of the fruits of her avocado tree, and
considering that an avocado has an average life span of
seventy (70) years, she expects a substantial earning from
it.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was a valid grant of an easement
2) Whether or not the right of way proposed by Yolonda is the least
onerous/least prejudicial to the parties
HELD: YES to both
1) A right of way in particular is a privilege constituted by
covenant or granted by law to a person or class of persons to pass
3. ENCARNACION vs. CA
FACTS:
Petitioner and respondents are the owners of two adjacent
estates situated in Buco, Talisay Batangas. Petitioner owns the
dominant estate bounded on the north by the servient estate
owned by respondents and an estate owned by a Magsino. The
servient estate of the respondents was in turn bound on north by
the National Highway. In other words, the servient and the estate
of Magsino stood between the National Highway and the
petitioners estate. To provide access to the highway, a 1-meter
wide roadpath was constituted, taking half a meter each from the
estate of the respondents and that of Magsino. At the time,
petitioner started his plant nursery business on his land, using
pushcarts to haul the plants and garden soil to and from the
nursery and the highway via the 1-meter road path. As his
business grew, it became increasingly difficult to use the pushcarts
and he bought an owner-type jeep which could not pass through
the road path. He requested the respondents to sell him 1
meters of their property so that he may add the same to the
existing pathway but the respondents refised. Hence, the
petitioner instituted an action for easement of a right of way over
an additional width over the respondents estate. Both the RTC and
CA ruled against petitioner holding that the necessity interposed
by petitioner was not compelling to justify interference with the
property rights of respondents considering the presence of a dried
river bed only 80 meters away from the dominant estate through
which petitioner may drive his jeep in order to get to the highway.
VALDEZ V. TABISULA
ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner is entitled to an additional easement of right of
way.
HELD:
Yes. While there is a dried river bed less than 100 meters from the
dominant tenement, that access is grossly inadequate. Generally,
the right of way may be demanded: (1) when there is absolutely
no access to a public highway, and (2) when, even if there is one,
it is difficult or dangerous to use or is grossly insufficient. In the
present case, the river bed route is traversed by a semi-concrete
bridge and there is no ingress nor egress from the highway. For the
jeep to reach the level of the highway, it must literally jump four
(4) to five (5) meters up. Moreover, during the rainy season, the
river bed is impassable due to the floods. Thus, it can only be used
at certain times of the year. With the inherent disadvantages of the
river bed which make passage difficult, if not impossible, it is if
there were no outlet at all.
Where a private property has no access to a public road, it has the
right of easement over adjacent servient estates as a matter of
law.
Under Art. 651 of the CC, it is the needs of the dominant property
which ultimately determine the width of the easement of right of
way. As petitioners business grew, so did the need for the use of
FACTS:
Petitioner-spouses Victor and Jocelyn Valdez purchased via a
January 11, 1993 Deed of Absolute Sale from respondent-spouses
Francisco Tabisula and Caridad Tabisula a 200 square meter (sq.m.)
portion (the subject property) of a 380 sq. m. parcel of land
located in San Fernando, La Union. The deed stated that the
petitioners shall be provided a 2 1/2 meters wide road rightof-way on the western side of their lot but which is not included
in this sale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not in compliance with the requirements set
forth in Art. 649 and 650 of the NCC, the Right of Way may be
imposed?
HELD:
Petition was DISMISSED for LACK OF MERIT. CA decision was
AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
Easement for Right of Way Requisites:
1. Dominant estate must be surrounded by other immovables
and has no adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. Proper indemnity has been paid;
3. The isolation was not due to acts of the owner of the
dominant estate; and
4. ROW claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the estate.
As far as the SC is concerned, in the present case, the
fourth requisite is absent. SC concurs aptly to the wisdom of the