Q. No. 10 | Civil Law | Bar 2023
Marvic inherited a piece of land and decided to farm it. The land was bordered on all sides by properties belonging to other owners. The surrounding property closest to the public highway is owned by Renato. Willing to pay compensation, Marvic talked to Renato about granting him access to the highway but Renato refused. Renato reasoned that there is another access point for Marvic through a dirt road that connects to the public highway without passing through his property. Marvic argued that this is not convenient as it is twice the distance, circuitous, and unlit. As they could not reach an agreement, Marvic filed a complaint for easement of right of way against Renato. Should a compulsory right of way be granted in favor of Marvic? Explain your answer.
Ads.
Suggested Answer:
Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code provide the requisites of an easement of right of way:
ART. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Ads.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts.
Ads.
ART. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
Based on these provisions, the following requisites need to be established before a person becomes entitled to demand the compulsory easement of right of way:58
RELATED
1. An immovable is surrounded by other immovables belonging to other persons, and is without adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. Payment of proper indemnity by the owner of the surrounded immovable;
3. The isolation of the immovable is not due to its owner’s acts; and
4. The proposed easement of right of way is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance of the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
An easement of right of way is a real right. When an easement of right of way is granted to another person, the rights of the property’s owner are limited.59 An owner may not exercise some of his or her property rights for the benefit of the person who was granted the easement of right of way. Hence, the burden of proof to show the existence of the above conditions is imposed on the person who seeks the easement of right of way.60
Ads.
There is an adequate exit to a public highway.
This court explained in Dichoso, Jr. v. Marcos61 that the convenience of the dominant estate’s owner is not the basis for granting an easement of right of way, especially if the owner’s needs may be satisfied without imposing the easement.62 Thus:
Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement. Even in the face of necessity, if it can be satisfied without imposing the easement, the same should not be imposed.
Ads.
Also in Floro v. Llenado, we refused to impose a right of way over petitioner’s property although private respondent’s alternative route was admittedly inconvenient because he had to traverse several ricelands and rice paddies belonging to different persons, not to mention that said passage is impassable during the rainy season.
Article 650 of the Civil Code provides that in determining the existence of an easement of right of way, the requirement of
"least prejudic[e] to the servient estate" trumps "distance [between] the dominant estate [and the] public highway." "Distance" is considered only insofar as it is consistent to the requirement of "least prejudice."
Ads.
This court had already affirmed the preferred status of the requirement of "least prejudice" over distance of the dominant estate to the public highway.66 Thus, in Quimen, this court granted the longer right of way over therein respondent’s property because the shorter route required that a structure of strong materials needed to be demolished.67
This court said:
[T]he court is not bound to establish what is the shortest distance; a longer way may be adopted to avoid injury to the servient estate, such as when there are constructions or walls which can be avoided by a round about way, or to secure the interest of the dominant owner, such as when the shortest distance would place the way on a dangerous decline.
Ads.
While shortest distance may ordinarily imply least prejudice, it is not always so as when there are permanent structures obstructing the shortest distance; while on the other hand, the longest distance may be free of obstructions and the easiest or most convenient to pass through.
In other words, where the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2) 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.68 (Citation omitted) Petitioner would have permanent structures — such as the garage, garden, and grotto already installed on respondent’s property — destroyed to accommodate her preferred location for the right of way.
Ads.
The cost of having to destroy these structures, coupled with the fact that there is an available outlet that can be utilized for the right of way, negates a claim that respondents’ property is the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
An easement is a limitation on the owner’s right to use his or her property for the benefit of another. By imposing an easement on a property, its owner will have to forego using it for whatever purpose he or she deems most beneficial. Least prejudice, therefore, is about the suffering of the servient estate. Its value is not determined solely by the price of the property, but also by the value of the owner’s foregone opportunity for use, resulting from the limitations imposed by the easement.69 (*)
Ads.
The Supreme Court similarly held that:
IN EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY that easement where the way is shortest and will cause least prejudice shall be chosen. However, if the two circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way where damage will be least shall be used even if not the shortest route.1 This is so because least prejudice prevails over shortest distance. This means that the court is not bound to establish what is the shortest distance; a longer way may be adopted to avoid injury to the servient estate, such as when there are constructions or walls which can be avoided by a round about way, or to secure the interest of the dominant owner, such as when the shortest distance would place the way on a dangerous decline. (**)
Ads.
FOOTNOTES
59 See Cristobal v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 318, 328 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
Ads.
Lawyer t-shirt
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
Ads.
