ALICIA B. REYES , Petitioner , v. SPOUSES VALENTIN VALENTIN RAMOS, FRANCISCO S. AND , Respondents. ANATALIA Respondents
750 SCRA 379 Who may demand Easement of Right of Way Way - dominant estate, usufructruary but not lessee. Art. 649 – FACTS: Alicia B. Reyes through Dolores B. Cinco filed a Complaint for Easement of right of way before the RTC, RTC, Bulacan against respondents pouses !rancisco "alentin and Anatalia Ramos. Reyes #as the o#ner of a $%&-s'm. parcel of land in Barangay (alibong Bata, )andi, Bulacan, #hich #as surrounded by estates belonging to other persons. he alleged that respondents* +,%&& s'm. property surrounded her property, property, and that it #as the only ade'uate outlet from her property to the high#ay. he points out that ++ s'm. portion of the respondents* property #as the point least preudicial to the easement sought a /acant portion near the boundary boundary of respondents* other lot. Reyes insisted that her property #as not isolated because of her o#n acts. According According to her, both lots #ere pre/iously o#ned by her mother. The respondents* lot #as originally gi/en to one Dominador Ramos, #ho #as allegedly respondents* predecessor-in-interest, her mother*s brother and at the same time, the careta0er of the property. property. 1nly %&&s'm of the property #as gi/en to Dominador #ho con/eyed to himself the #hole lot, including that #hich #as supposed to be access to the barangay road. Despite demands and #illingness to pay the amount, respondents refused ti accede to petitioner*s claims. Respondents contended that2 3+4 the isolation of of pertitioner5s property property #as due to her mother*s mother*s o#n act of subdi/iding subdi/iding the property among her children #ithout regard to the pendency of an agrarian case bet#een her and her parents. 364 )roperty )roperty chosen as easement easement #as also most burdensome burdensome for them, as there #as another open space #hich connected the petitioner*s property to another public road. An ocular inspection #as agreed upon and a report #as made #hich #as made the basis of the RTC*s decision2 Dismissi! t"# $%m&'(it )%r #(s#m#t %) ri!"t %) *(+. The RTC found that the petitioner*s proposed right of #ay #as not the least onerous to the ser/ient estate of respondents, as there #ere impro/ements 3garage, garden, and grotto4 placed upon it. 7t also noted the #ist#$# %) ( irri!(ti% $((' t"(t 'imit#- ($$#ss t% &/'i$ r%(-, *"#r# ( #(r/+ '(-%*#r *(s (/'# t% $%str$t ( /ri-!# t% $%#$t ( &r%&#rt+ t% t"# &/'i$ r%(-. 0#$# t"# *(+ t"r%!" t"# irri!(ti% $((' *%'- (&&#(r t% /# t"# s"%rt#st (- #(si#st *(+ t% r#($" t"# /(r(!(+ r%(-. )etitioner )etitioner appealed the RTC*s RTC*s decision. decision. T"# CA -#i#- t"# (&&#(' and affirme affirmed d in toto toto the RTC*s decision. )etitioner failed to discharge the burden of pro/ing the e8istence of the re'uisites for the grant of easement.
)etitioner argued that RTC and CA failed to consider that it #as not her property that #as adacent to the irrigation canal but her sister*s. The fact that she had to construct a bridge o/er the irrigation canal supported her position that there #as indeed no ade'uate outlet from her property to the public road. Respondents argue that the case #as already barred by prior udgment.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner has the compulsory easement of right of #ay o/er the respondents* property9 0ELD: P#titi% "(s % m#rit.
7ssue of o#nership is irrele/ant because filing of a complaint for easement of right of #ay is recognition of the ser/ient property o#ner*s rights. 7t is tantamount to a #ai/er of #hate/er right or claim of o#nership petitioner had o/er the property. S"# )(i'#- t% s(tis)+ t"# r#1ir#m#ts )%r t"# #(s#m#t %) ri!"t %) *(+ -#r t"# Ci2i' C%-#. Art 649. The o#ner, or any person #ho by /irtue of a real right may culti/ate or use any immo/able, #hich is surrounded by other immo/ables pertaining to other persons and #ithout ade'uate outlet to a public high#ay, is entitled to demand a right of #ay through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
hould this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the /alue of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the ser/ient estate. 7n case the right of #ay is limited to the necessary passage for the culti/ation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the ser/ient estate #ithout a permanent #ay, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immo/able is due to the proprietor:s o#n acts. Art. 63. The easement of right of #ay shall be established at the point least preudicial to the ser/ient estate, and, insofar as consistent #ith this rule, #here the distance from the dominant estate to a public high#ay may be the shortest.
Based on these pro/isions these are the re'uisites needed to be established before a person becomes entitled to demand a compulsory right of #ay2 +.
An immo/able is surrounded by other immo/ables belonging to other persons, and is #ithout ade'uate outlet to a public high#ay5
6.
)ayment of proper indemnity by the o#ner of the surrounded immo/able5
.
The isolation of the immo/able is not due to its o#ner:s acts5 and
$.
The proposed easement of right of #ay is established at the point least preudicial to the ser/ient estate, and insofar as consistent #ith this rule, #here the distance of the dominant estate to a public high#ay may be the shortest.
T"#r# is ( (-#1(t# #it t% ( &/'i$ "i!"*(+.
This court e8plained in i!hoso" #r. v. $ar!os that the con/enience of the dominant estate:s o#ner is not the basis for granting an easement of right of #ay, especially if the o#ner:s needs may be satisfied #ithout imposing the easement. The court is not bound to establish #hat is the shortest distance5 a longer #ay may be adopted to a/oid inury to the ser/ient estate The criterion of least preudice to the ser/ient estate must pre/ail o/er the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter of udicial appreciation. )etitioner #ould ha/e permanent structures ; such as the garage, garden, and grotto already installed on respondent:s property ; destroyed to accommodate her preferred location for the right of #ay. The cost of ha/ing to destroy these structures, coupled #ith the fact that there is an a/ailable outlet that can be utiliational 7rrigation Administration ?etter-Response to petitioner:s 'uery regarding the possibility of constructing a concrete bridge o/er the irrigation canal sho#s that petitioner #as not really disallo#ed from constructing a bridge. he #as merely gi/en certain conditions.
50EREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision promulgated on August +6, 6&+& and its Resolution promulgated on 1ctober 6@, 6&+& are AFFIRMED.
