24 Cristobal Vs CA

[G.R. No. 125339.
June 22, 1998]

CRISTOBAL vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
.
Petitioners own a house and lot situated at No. 10 Visayas Avenue Extension,
Quezon City, where they have been residing. Respondent Cesar Ledesma, Inc.,
on the other hand, is the owner of a subdivision at Barrio Culiat along Visayas
Avenue which once included the disputed residential lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2 located
adjacent to petitioners property. Subsequently, Ledesma sold both lots to
Macario Pacione in whose favor TCT were correspondingly issued. In turn,
Macario conveyed the lots to his son and daughter-in-law, respondent spouses
Jesus and Lerma Pacione. When the Pacione spouses, intended to build a
house on Lot 1, they found out that the lot was occupied by a squatter named
Juanita Geronimo and a portion was being used as a passageway by petitioners
to and from Visayas Avenue. Accordingly, the spouses complained about the
intrusion into their property to the Barangay Office. When the parties failed to
arrive at an amicable settlement, the spouses started enclosing Lot 1 with a
concrete fence. Petitioners protested the enclosure alleging that their property
was bounded on all sides by residential houses belonging to different owners and
had no adequate outlet and inlet to Visayas Avenue except through the property
of the Paciones. Petitioners instituted an action for easement of right of way with
prayer for the issuance of a TRO to cease and desist from fencing the disputed
property which was issued by RTC. The Paciones objected arguing that
petitioners were not entitled to a TRO since they showed no valid basis for its
issuance, and that petitioners had no cause of action against respondents
because there were actually two (2) accessible outlets and inlets - a pathway
right in front of their gate leading towards an asphalted 5-meter road to the left,
and across an open space to the right adjacent to respondents lot likewise
leading to Visayas Avenue.
issue:
whether or not the easement of right of way may be granted
held.
No because as to the RTC ordering an ocular inspection, it was

reported that there is another way from the Visayas Ave. to the
plaintiffs lot existing at the time of the ocular inspection on the
litigated lots
To be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, the preconditions
provided under Arts. 649 and 650 of the Civil Code must be established. These
are: (1) that the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no
adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) that proper indemnity has been paid; (3)
that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; (4)
that the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate
and, in so far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant
estate to a public highway may be the shortest.[9] The burden of proving the
existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate.[10]
In the present case, the first element is clearly absent. As found by the trial court
and the Court of Appeals, an outlet already exists, which is a path walk located at
the left side of petitioners property and which is connected to a private road
about five hundred (500) meters long. The private road, in turn, leads to Ma.
Elena Street which is about 2.5 meters wide and, finally, to Visayas Avenue. This
outlet was determined by the court a quo to be sufficient for the needs of the
dominant estate, hence petitioners have no cause to complain that they have no
adequate outlet to Visayas Avenue.
The Court affirmed the decision of the CA stated in the case of Costabella
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80511, 193

SCRA 333 [1991] with regards to easement which states that
The burden of proving the existence of the requisites of
easement of right of way lies on the owner of the dominant estate.
In the case at bar, plaintiff appellants failed to prove that there is
no adequate outlet from their property to a public highway.
Convenience of the dominant estate is not a gauge for the grant
of compulsory right of way. The true standard for the grant of the
legal right is adequacy. Hence, when there is already an existing
adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway, as
in this case, even if the outlet, for one reason or another, be

inconvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely
unjustified. To justify the imposition of an easement of right of
way, there must be real, not fictitious or artificial necessity for it. A
right of way is legally demandable, but the owner of the
dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based on arbitrary
choice. Art. 650 of the Civil Code provides for the criteria in the
establishment of such easement but it has been settled that the
criterion of least prejudicial prevails over shortest distance. Each
case must be weighed according to its individual merits and
judged according to the sound discretion of the court.
The petition is denied.
______________________
Further, no evidence was adduced by petitioners to prove that the easement they
seek to impose on private respondents property is to be established at a point
least prejudicial to the servient estate. For emphasis, Lot 1 is only 164 square
meters and an improvident imposition of the easement on the lot may unjustly
deprive private respondents of the optimum use and enjoyment of their property,
considering that its already small area will be reduced further by the easement.
Worse, it may even render the property useless for the purpose for which
private respondents purchased the same.
It must also be stressed that, by its very nature, and when considered with
reference to the obligations imposed on the servient estate, an easement
involves an abnormal restriction on the property rights of the servient owner and
is regarded as a charge or encumbrance on the servient estate. Thus, it is
incumbent upon the owner of the dominant estate to establish by clear and
convincing evidence the presence of all the preconditions before his claim for
easement of right of way may be granted. Petitioners miserably failed in this
regard.

24 Cristobal Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

24 Cristobal Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

24 Cristobal Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 125339.

June 22, 1998]

No because as to the RTC ordering an ocular inspection, it was

Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80511, 193

in this case, even if the outlet, for one reason or another, be

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.