FACTS:
Petitioner Tomas Encarnacion and private
respondent Heirs of the late Aniceta Magsino Viuda de Sagun are the owners of
two adjacent estates. The servient estate owned by respondent stands between
the dominant estate owned by Encarnacion and the national road.
In 1960 when private respondents constructed a
fence around the servient estate, a roadpath measuring 25 meters long and about
a meter wide was constituted to provide access to the highway. One-half meter
width of the path was taken from the servient estate and the other one-half
meter portion was taken from another lot owned by Mamerto Magsino.
The roadpath was used by Encarnacion and the
customers of his nursery business as passage. When his business flourished,
Encarnacion was able to purchase in 1984 an owner-type jeepney to be used in
transporting his plants. However, that jeep could not pass through the roadpath
and so he approached the servient estate owners (Aniceta Vda. de Sagun and
Elena Romero Vda. de Sagun) and requested that they sell to him one and
one-half (1 1/2) meters of their property to be added to the existing pathway
so as to allow passage for his jeepney. Such request was turned down. Hence,
petitioner instituted an action to seek the issuance of a writ of easement of a
right of way over an additional width of at least two (2) meters over the De
Saguns' 405-square-meter parcel of land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Encarnacion is entitled
to a widening of an already existing easement of right-of-way, considering that
the servient estate is only 405 square meters in size and that there is an
alternative passage of only 80 meters away from the national road through the
dried up river.
DECISION:
The petitioner Encarnacion is entitled to a
widening of the existing easement of right of way. The Court recognized that
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment