Mejorada v. Vertudazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents established their permanent residence on a 300-square meter lot in Telaje, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, which was landlocked. They utilized a proposed undeveloped barangay road on the south side of their property, owned by Rosario Quiñones, as their access route to Quiñones Street and the public highway. Procedural History: Petitioners, spouses Manuel and Rosalinda Mejorada, bought Rosario Quiñones’ lot in 1988, which included a 55.5 square meter area serving as respondents’ outlet. For years, this area was used as a passageway by respondents and the public. In 1997, petitioners closed the passageway by building a garage. Respondents failed to reach a settlement at the barangay level and filed a complaint with the RTC for easement of right of way and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The RTC initially ordered the passageway to be opened during the day and closed at night, to which petitioners agreed. However, petitioners failed to abide by this commitment. Consequently, respondents filed motions for contempt and to revive their injunction application. The RTC denied the contempt motion but granted the injunctive relief, ordering petitioners to keep the passageway open at all times. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents, decreeing the establishment of a compulsory easement of right of way, ordering respondents to pay indemnity, and declaring the preliminary mandatory injunction permanent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents are entitled to the easement of right of way on petitioners’ property.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62900 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that respondents are entitled to the easement of right of way. The Court reiterated the definition of an easement as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner, with the former being the servient estate and the latter the dominant estate. In this case, respondents’ property is the dominant estate, and petitioners’ property is the servient estate. The Court emphasized that a legal or compulsory easement requires the satisfaction of four requisites as provided by Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code. These requisites are: (a) the estate must be surrounded by other immovables and lack adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) there must be payment of proper indemnity; (c) the isolation must not be due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (d) the claimed right of way must be at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The Court found that all four requisites were met. Firstly, the Court of Appeals found no other road available to respondents leading to Quiñones Street except the passageway on petitioners’ property. Secondly, respondents had offered to pay the proper indemnity for the easement. Thirdly, the isolation of respondents’ property was not a result of their own actions. Fourthly, the easement was located at the corner of petitioners’ landholding, measuring 55.5 square meters, which was deemed the point least prejudicial and did not cause inconvenience to the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
The requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way are: (a) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) after payment of the proper indemnity; (c) the isolation was not due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (d) the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate. All these requisites were satisfied in this case.