Case Digest: Lee vs. Carreon, G.R. No. 149023. September 27, 2007.

Easement

CASE TITLE: Lee vs. Carreon

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 149023. September 27, 2007.

PONENTE: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari 

PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:

  1. RTC - Complaint for easement of right of way

  2. CA - Appeal

FACTS:

  • Respondents Amadeo and Adelaida Carreon own a house and Lots Nos. 8-B and 8-C in Cebu City, covered by TCT Nos. 61049 and 56745.

    • Anita Linda Rodriguez owns Lot No. 6213-A-2, covered by TCT No. 93402, situated near the Carreons’ lots.

  • The Carreons filed a complaint for easement of right of way against Rodriguez due to the lack of access to the nearest road.

    • During pre-trial, the RTC identified another servient estate owned by Mr. and Ms. Anselmo Jardin that could be used for the right of way.

  • The Jardins' lots were sold pendente lite to Leo Winston Brin Lee.

  • RTC: Ruled in favor of the Carreons and against Lee, ordering:

    • Lee to grant the Carreons a right of way on the northern portion of his properties (one-meter wide and thirteen meters long).

    • Lee to demolish the fence obstructing the right of way.

    • The Carreons to pay Lee ₱3,000.00 per sq. m., totaling ₱39,000.00, as indemnity.

    • The Carreons to pay Lee ₱25,000.00 for the value of the wall/fence to be demolished.

  • CA: Dismissed Lee’s appeal, affirming the RTC Judgment.


ISSUE:


Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents are entitled to an easement of right of way on petitioner’s property. NO


ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES  

PETITIONER

RESPONDENTS

  • Petitioner contends that respondents have an existing right of way; and that had the trial court considered certain testimonial evidence and respondents’ admissions, its conclusion and that of the Court of Appeals would have been different.

  • Respondents, on the other hand, pray that the petition be denied for lack of merit.

PREVAILING PARTY: Respondent

DECISION/DOCTRINE:


The conferment of a legal easement of right of way is governed by Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code reproduced as follows:


ART. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.


Should 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 value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.


In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.


This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts.


ART. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.


To be entitled to an easement of right of way, the following requisites should be met:


1. the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway (Art. 649, par. 1);


2. there is payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, par. 1);


3. the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate (Art. 649, last par.); and


4. the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest (Art. 650).3


All the above requisites are present here.


As regards the first requisite, the parties agreed that respondents’ property is surrounded by the estates of other persons, including that of petitioner. The only dispute is whether respondents have an adequate outlet to the nearest road. The Court of Appeals held:


x x x What defendant-appellant insists is that plaintiffs-appellees can use another outlet leading to the nearest road by traversing several small lots and thereafter use the northern portion of his property which he is willing to be the subject of a right of way. The trial court found that plaintiffs-appellees managed to reach the nearest road through any passage available, passing through several lots as they were unobstructed by any structure of fence. However, as correctly ruled by the court a quo, this is not the adequate outlet referred to by law.1âwphi1 Plaintiffs-appellees have every right in accordance with law to formally demand for an adequate outlet sufficient for their needs. Moreover, the alternative route referred to by defendant-appellant appears to be merely a proposed outlet, not yet in existence. x x x


The second requisite is that payment of indemnity has been complied with. Respondents have consistently maintained that they are "willing to pay the area affected at a reasonable price that may be fixed by the Court."


Anent the third requisite, records show that the isolation of respondents’ property is not due to their fault. Actually, it is surrounded by estates of other persons, leaving respondents no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway.


Going now to the fourth requisite that the right of way claimed is at the point "least prejudicial" and "shortest distance" to the servient estate, the Court of Appeals held: "We find the same to be present in the case at bar." 


Moreover, it should be emphasized that what respondent spouses asked for was merely a one (1) meter wide pathway. The trial court found that this easement will only affect a small portion of petitioner’s lot which has a total area of 249 square meters. Only his fence will be affected, the damage of which respondent spouses are willing to pay.


Verily, we find no cogent reason to disturb the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Judgment of the trial court.


WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60511 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more