FACTS:
In February 1982 Yolanda purchased Lot No.
1448-B-6-A from her uncle Antonio through her aunt Anastacia who was then
acting as his administratrix. According to Yolanda, when petitioner offered her
the property for sale she was hesitant to buy as it had no access to a public
road. But Anastacia prevailed upon her to buy the lot with the assurance that
she would give her a right of way on her adjoining property for P200.00 per
square meter. Thereafter, Yolanda constructed a house on the lot she bought
using as her passageway to the public highway a portion of Anastacia s
property. But when Yolanda finally offered to pay for the use of the pathway
Anastacia refused to accept the payment. In fact she was thereafter barred by
Anastacia from passing through her property.
On 29 December 1987 Yolanda filed an action with
the proper court praying for a right of way through Anastacia s property. An
ocular inspection upon instruction of the presiding judge was conducted by the
branch clerk of court. The report was that the proposed right of way was at the
extreme right of Anastacias property facing the public highway, starting from
the back of Soteros sari-sari store and extending inward by one (1) meter to
her property and turning left for about five (5) meters to avoid the store of
Sotero in order to reach the municipal road and the way was unobstructed except
for an avocado tree standing in the middle.
Petitioner insists that passing through the
property of Yolandas parents is more accessible to the public road than to make
a detour to her property and cut down the avocado tree standing thereon.
Petitioner strongly maintains that the proposed right of way is not the
shortest access to the public road because of the detour and that, moreover,
she is likely to suffer the most damage as she derives a net income of P600.00
per year from the sale of the fruits of her avocado tree, and considering that
an avocado has an average life span of seventy (70) years, she expects a
substantial earning from it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Yolanda is entitled to an easement
of right of way through the property of Anastacia considering that a longer,
circuitous route is available.
DECISION:
Yolanda is entitled to a right of way on
petitioner Anastacia's property and that the way proposed by Yolanda would
cause the least damage and detriment to the servient estate. The Court found
that the four requisites for the legal compulsory easement of right of way has
been sufficiently met as the evidence clearly shows that the property of
private respondent is hemmed in by the estates of other persons including that
of petitioner; that she offered to pay P200.00 per square meter for her right
of way as agreed between her and petitioner; that she did not cause the
isolation of her property; that the right of way is the least prejudicial to
the servient estate. These facts are confirmed in the ocular inspection report
of the clerk of court, more so that the trial court itself declared that [t]he
said properties of Antonio Quimen which were purchased by plaintiff Yolanda
Quimen Oliveros were totally isolated from the public highway and there appears
an imperative need for an easement of right of way to the public highway.
No comments:
Post a Comment