Case Digest: Reyes vs. Sps Francisco Valentin & Anatalia Ramos G.R. No. 194488 I February 11, 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Barangay Malibong Bata, Pandi, Bulacan. The property used to be a portion of Lot No. 3-B8 and was surrounded by estates belonging to other persons. Petitioner also alleged that respondents’ 1,500-square-meter property surrounded her property, and that it was the only adequate outlet from her property to the highway.A 113-square-meter portion of respondents’ property was also the "point least prejudicial to the respondents." The easement sought was the vacant portion near the boundary of respondents’ other lot.

According to petitioner, her and respondents’ lots were previously owned by her mother. Respondents’ lot was given to Dominador Ramos who allegedly was respondents’ predecessor-in-interest. Dominador was also her mother’s brother and caretaker of properties. Only 500 square meters were given to Dominador. Part of the 1,500 square meters was intended as a right of way. Dominador was tasked to prepare the documents. But, instead of limiting the conveyance to himself to 500 square meters of the property, he conveyed the whole 1,500 square meters. Petitioner’s mother presumed that Dominador being her brother would give her a right of way to the main road. Instead of giving way, however, he closed the passage, causing petitioner’s property’s isolation. Despite demands and willingness to pay the amount, respondents refused to accede to petitioner’s claims.

Respondents contended that the isolation of petitioner’s property was due to her mother’s own act of subdividing the property among her children without regard to the pendency of an agrarian case between her and her tenants. The property chosen by petitioner as easement was also the most burdensome for respondents. Respondents pointed to an open space that connected petitioner’s property to another public road.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner has a compulsory easement of right of way over the respondents' property.

DECISION:

The petitioner is not entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way. Petitioner failed to satisfy the Civil Code requirements for the grant of easement rights. Petitioner failed to establish that there was no adequate outlet to the public highway and that the proposed easement was the least prejudicial to respondents’ estate since there is an adequate exit to a public highway. Based on the Ocular Inspection Report, petitioner’s property had another outlet to the highway. In between her property and the highway or road, however, is an irrigation canal, which can be traversed by constructing a bridge, similar to what was done by the owners of the nearby properties. There is, therefore, no need to utilize respondents’ property to serve petitioner’s needs. Another adequate exit exists. Petitioner can use this outlet to access the public roads. The outlet referred to in the Ocular Inspection Report may be longer and more inconvenient to petitioner because she will have to traverse other properties and construct a bridge over the irrigation canal before she can reach the road. However, these reasons will not justify the imposition of an easement on respondents’ property because her convenience is not the gauge in determining whether to impose an easement of right of way over another’s property.