Case Digest: Sta. Maria vs. Fajardo G.R. No. 127549 I January 28, 1998

FACTS:

On February 17, 1992, plaintiff spouses Fajardo filed a complaint against defendants Cesar and Raquel Sta. Maria or Florcerfida Sta. Maria for the establishment of an easement of right of way. Plaintiffs alleged that their lot, Lot 124, is surrounded by properties belonging to other persons, including those of the defendants; that since plaintiffs have no adequate outlet to the provincial road, an easement of a right of way passing through either of the alternative defendants properties which are directly abutting the provincial road would be plaintiffs only convenient, direct and shortest access to and from the provincial road; that plaintiffs predecessors-in-interest have been passing through the properties of defendants in going to and from their lot; that defendants mother even promised plaintiffs predecessors-in-interest to grant the latter an easement of right of way as she acknowledged the absence of an access from their property to the road; and that alternative defendants, despite plaintiffs request for a right of way and referral of the dispute to the barangay officials, refused to grant them an easement. Thus, plaintiffs prayed that an easement of right of way on the lots of defendants be established in their favor.

Consequently, defendants filed their answer to the court below where they alleged that the granting of an easement in favor of plaintiffs would cause them great damage and inconvenience; and that there is another access route from plaintiffs lot to the main road through the property of Florentino Cruz which was likewise abutting the provincial road and was being offered for sale.

ISSUE:

Whether or not spouses Fajardo are entitled to the compulsory legal easement of right of way.   

DECISION:

Spouses Fajardo has satisfied all the requisites and must be granted the compulsory legal easement of right of way. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs-appellees spouses Fajardo’s property is surrounded by other immovables owned by different individuals, as revealed by the ocular inspection report of the Clerk of Court; that spouses Fajardo are willing to pay the corresponding damages provided for by law if granted the right of way; that the isolation of their lot is not due to plaintiffs acts. The property they purchased was already surrounded by other immovables leaving them no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway; and lastly, it has been commented upon that where there are several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, and the easement may be established on any of them, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. But if these two 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. And if the conditions of the various tenements are the same, all the adjoining owners should be cited and experts utilized to determine where the easement shall be established.