Case Digest: Williams vs. Zerda, G.R. No. 207146. March 15, 2017.

Easement

CASE TITLE: Williams vs. Zerda

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 207146. March 15, 2017.

PONENTE: Mendoza, J.

CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari 

PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:

  1. RTC - Easement for right of way

  2. CA - Appeal

FACTS:

  • Rainero A. Zerda owned Lot No. 1177-B in Surigao City, covered by TCT No. T-18074.

  • Lot No. 1177-B (dominant estate) is bordered by:

    • Back Lot No. 7298 - swampy mangrove area owned by the Republic of the Philippines)

    • Side Lot No. 1177-C - Woodridge Properties, Inc.

    • Side Lot No. 1206 - Luis G. Dilag 

    • Front Lot No. 1201-A - Spouses Larry and Rosarita Williams where the national highway runs along.

  • In 2004, Zerda filed a complaint against Spouses Williams for an easement of right of way.

  • RTC: Ruled in favor of Spouses Williams, dismissing Zerda’s complaint.

    • The RTC found that the isolation of Zerda’s property was due to his own actions, as he was aware of the improvements made by Spouses Williams before purchasing the property.

    • The RTC determined that the right of way requested by Zerda was not the shortest path to the public highway and would cause more prejudice to Spouses Williams.

  • CA: Reversed and set aside the RTC ruling, granting Zerda’s appeal.

    • The CA ruled that the isolation of Zerda’s property was not due to his own acts and that a purchaser of an enclosed estate should not be denied the right of way simply because of prior knowledge of the isolation.

    • Determined Zerda was not in bad faith during the property purchase and that Sierra was free to sell to any buyer.

    • Found Zerda’s proposed right of way was the shortest and least prejudicial to Spouses Williams’ property.

ISSUE:


Whether the respondent Zerda is entitled to an easement of right of way. YES


ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES  

PETITIONER

RESPONDENTS

  • Spouses Williams argued that Zerda failed to establish the requisites for a right of way.

  • They claimed that in May 2003, they were negotiating to buy the dominant estate from the former owner, Agripina Sierra, but Zerda intervened and bought it instead.

  • Spouses Williams had already made significant improvements to their property, worth ₱6,619,678.00, before Zerda’s purchase.

  • They argued that Zerda’s requested right of way would cause them significant damage and prejudice.

  • They contended that Zerda’s property’s isolation was due to his own actions.

  • -

  • -

  • Zerda  claimed his lot had no adequate outlet to a public highway and was isolated due to its location.

  • Zerda had previously requested a right of way from Spouses Williams, offering compensation or a property swap, but they refused.

PREVAILING PARTY: Respondent

DECISION/DOCTRINE:


The Court's Ruling


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


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.


In summary, an entitlement to the easement of right of way requires that the following requisites must 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).


All the above requisites are present in this case.


As regards the first requisite, there is no dispute that the respondent's property was surrounded by other immovables owned by different individuals, including Spouses Williams. The isolation was further shown in the Sketch Plan prepared by Honorato R. Bisnar, the geodetic engineer deputized by the parties. Moreover, contrary to Spouses Williams' claim that there was a barangay road closest to the dominant estate, the RTC, during the ocular inspection, observed that "there was no existing barangay road xxx."


The second requisite of payment of indemnity was also complied with by the respondent when he wrote Spouses Williams on January 27, 2004, formally asking them to provide him with a right of way, for which he was willing to pay a reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property.


Anent the third requisite, the isolation of the dominant estate was not due to the respondent's own acts. The property he purchased was already surrounded by other immovables leaving him no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway. Spouses Williams refused to grant a right of way and averred that the isolation of the dominant estate was attributable to the respondent's own acts. They pointed out that when the respondent purchased the dominant estate, he knew that Sierra was in negotiation with them for the sale of the dominant estate, thus, he was in bad faith. Nonetheless, it cannot be used to defeat the respondent's claim for a right of way. Sierra had every right to sell his property to anybody. Further, when the respondent bought the dominant estate there could have been no existing contract of sale yet considering that Spouses Williams and Sierra were still in negotiation.


Hence, consent, one of the essential requisites for a valid contract, was lacking.


As to the fourth requisite, the Court finds that the right of way sought by the respondent is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and it is the shortest distance to the national highway. This is evident in the Sketch Plan showing that the requested right of way was alongside the perimeter of Spouses Williams' property. Moreover, during the ocular inspection, the RTC observed that the right of way, which the respondent was seeking was alongside a precipice. Spouses Williams insisted that they intended to build structures on the portion claimed by the respondent, but at a safe distance from the precipice, not immediately beside it. In addition, the 705.20 sq. m long pathway would only affect a small portion of the 12,200 sq. m. property of Spouses Williams, and for which the respondent expressed willingness to pay.


Even assuming that the right of way being claimed by the respondent is not the shortest distance from the dominant estate to the public highway, it is well-settled that "[t]he criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation. xxx In other words, where 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. If having 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." As previously discussed, the right of way claimed by the respondent is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate.


WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The November 28, 2012 Decision and the April 16, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. CV No. 01115-MIN, are AFFIRMED in toto.


SO ORDERED.

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