Case Digest: Constabella Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80511 I January 25, 1991

FACTS:

Before the petitioner began the construction of its beach hotel, the private respondents, in going to and from their respective properties and the provincial road, passed through a passageway which traversed the petitioner's property. In 1981, the petitioner closed the aforementioned passageway when it began the construction of its hotel, but nonetheless opened another route across its property through which the private respondents, as in the past, were allowed to pass. Later, or sometime in August, 1982, when it undertook the construction of the second phase of its beach hotel, the petitioner fenced its property thus closing even the alternative passageway and preventing the private respondents from traversing any part of it.

The private respondents filed an action assailing the petitioner's closure of the original passageway which they claimed to be an "ancient road right of way" that had been existing before World War II and since then had been used by them, the community, and the general public, either as pedestrians or by means of vehicles, in going to and coming from Lapu-Lapu City and other parts of the country, and that by closing the alleged road right of way in question, the petitioner had deprived them access to their properties and caused them damages.

In its answer, the petitioner denied the existence of an ancient road through its property and counter-averred, among others, that it and its predecessors-in-interest had permitted the temporary, intermittent, and gratuitous use of, or passage through, its property by the private respondents and others by mere tolerance and purely as an act of neighborliness.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the private respondents had acquired an easement of right of way, in the form of a passageway, on the petitioner's property.

DECISION:

The private respondents has not acquired an easement of right of way, having failed to sufficiently establish the requisites of compulsory easement of way since there exist another outlet for the plaintiff to the main road, albeit inconvenient to the plaintiff. However, the convenience of the dominant estate has never been the gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. To be sure, the true standard for the grant of the legal right is "adequacy." Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway, even if the said outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely unjustified. For to justify the imposition of an easement or right of way, "there must be a real, not a fictitious or artificial necessity for it."

Further, the private respondents failed to indicate in their complaint or even to manifest during the trial of the case that they were willing to indemnify fully the petitioner for the right of way to be established over its property. Neither have the private respondents been able to show that the isolation of their property was not due to their personal or their predecessors-in-interest's own acts. Finally, the private respondents failed to allege, much more introduce any evidence, that the passageway they seek to be re-opened is at a point least prejudicial to the petitioner.