De Guzman vs. FBLINVEST Development Corporation

In a compulsory easement of right of way established for permanent passage under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, the indemnity payable to the servient estate consists of the value of the land occupied plus damages caused; however, pursuant to Article 651, the width of the easement—and consequently the area to be indemnified—must be limited to that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, not necessarily the full width of existing roads.

Petitioners were co-owners of a 15,063-square-meter parcel of land in Barrio Bulao, Cainta, Rizal, which was surrounded by other real properties and lacked direct access to a public highway. The property was adjacent to Filinvest Home Subdivision Phase IV-A, owned by respondent Filinvest Development Corporation, which provided potential access to Marcos Highway. An alternative route through another property leading to Sumulong Highway existed but was undeveloped, hilly, and traversing raw lands owned by different persons. The dispute arose when petitioners sought a compulsory right of way through respondent's subdivision, leading to conflicting interpretations regarding whether the easement covered only the immediate point of entry (Road Lot 15) or the entire stretch of subdivision roads leading to the highway.

• Petitioners were co-owners in fee simple of a 15,063-square-meter parcel of land in Barrio Bulao, Cainta, Rizal, which was later subdivided among them with individual titles issued.
• The property was enclosed and surrounded by other immovables belonging to various owners, with no adequate outlet to a public highway.
• One adjoining property was Filinvest Home Subdivision Phase IV-A, owned by respondent, which provided potential access to Marcos Highway (approximately 2,350 meters away).
• An alternative route to Sumulong Highway (approximately 1,400 meters) existed through another property, but it was undeveloped, hilly, traversed raw lands belonging to different owners, and was not passable by vehicular means.
• During remand proceedings, the fair market value of respondent's property was established at P1,620.00 per square meter by the Municipal Assessor's Office of Cainta.
• The parties disputed the extent of the right of way: petitioners claimed it covered only Road Lot 15 (where a fence separated the properties), while respondent contended it covered the entire stretch from petitioners' property to Marcos Highway (Road Lots 15, 3, 10, 6, 4, 2, and 1).
• Evidence showed the affected roads had a width of 10 meters.
• Petitioners judicially admitted during remand proceedings that the right of way affected several road lots within the subdivision.

• The right of way granted under the April 30, 1993 RTC Decision pertains only to Road Lot 15, as specifically mentioned in the decision stating that "only a fence separates" the properties and "access to the Marcos Highway is readily available" through Lot 15.
• The CA improperly reversed the final ruling of the RTC which had become final and executory with respect to Road Lot 15 being the subject of the easement.
• The case of Woodridge School, Inc. v. ARB Construction Co., Inc. is inapplicable because in that case, the right of way was for exclusive occupation, whereas here the road network is for common use with subdivision residents.
• It is inequitable to require payment for the value of the entire road lots since this amounts to buying the property without receiving title or dominion over it.
• The Motion for Reconsideration was filed on time (October 21, 2009) via registered mail, not October 22, 2009 as held by the CA.
• The petition, though denominated as one for certiorari under Rule 65, should be treated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 since it raises questions of fact and law.

• Under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, the measurement of the land comprising a right of way should be the distance from the dominant estate to the public highway, covering the entire stretch of road lots (23,500 square meters) that petitioners must traverse to reach Marcos Highway.
• The Woodridge case is applicable and controlling: the indemnity for a permanent passage consists of the value of the land occupied and the amount of damage caused to the servient estate.
• The RTC's limitation of the easement to Road Lot 15 was erroneous because petitioners cannot reach Marcos Highway without traversing the other road lots.
• Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time (October 22, 2009, when the deadline was October 21, 2009).
• The petition is a confused mixture of Rule 45 and Rule 65 remedies, but should be treated as Rule 45 since appeal was still available.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition was properly filed under Rule 45 or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
  • Whether the Motion for Reconsideration filed with the CA was timely.
• Substantive Issues:
  • What is the proper extent of the right of way granted to petitioners—does it cover only Road Lot 15 or the entire road network leading to Marcos Highway?
  • What is the proper measure of indemnity for the legal easement of right of way?

• Procedural:
  • The Court treated the petition as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 despite mixed allegations, applying the liberality rule to secure substantial justice and noting that the case has been pending for close to three decades.
  • The Court reversed the CA's finding that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time, holding that the envelope attached to the transmittal letter showed it was filed by registered mail on October 21, 2009 at the Broadway Centrum Post Office, Quezon City, making it timely.
• Substantive:
  • The right of way granted covers the network of roads within respondent's subdivision (Road Lots 15, 3, 10, 6, 4, 2, and 1) and not merely Road Lot 15, as the RTC's reference to the 2,350-meter distance to Marcos Highway clearly contemplated the entire road network.
  • The width of the easement for indemnity purposes is modified from 10 meters to 3 meters pursuant to Article 651 of the Civil Code, which provides that the width shall be sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate; a 3-meter width is sufficient for vehicular access.
  • The total area to be indemnified is 7,050 square meters (2,350 meters length x 3 meters width), valued at P1,620.00 per square meter, for a total of P11,421,000.00.
  • Petitioners must bear the cost of removing the fence in Road Lot 15 and maintaining such opening.
  • Petitioners must pay the homeowner's association monthly dues equivalent to half of the rate assessed against subdivision residents for road maintenance, security, and other facilities.

• Liberal Construction of Rules — The Rules of Court should be liberally construed to promote their object of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action; technicalities should not bar substantive justice, especially in cases pending for decades.
• Judicial Admissions — Admissions made by a party in the course of proceedings in the same case do not require proof and bind the party making them unless shown to be made through palpable mistake; petitioners' admission that the right of way affected several road lots precluded their later claim that it covered only Road Lot 15.
• Indemnity for Legal Easement (Articles 649 and 650) — For a permanent passage, the indemnity consists of the value of the land occupied plus the amount of damage caused to the servient estate; this does not constitute alienation of the land, and the servient estate must return the indemnity if the easement is extinguished because the dominant estate acquires another outlet.
• Width of Easement (Article 651) — The width of an easement of right of way is determined by the needs of the dominant estate, not by the existing width of roads constructed prior to the grant of the easement; it may be changed from time to time as needs change.

• "The rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to aid the courts in the speedy, just and inexpensive determination of the cases before them. Liberal construction of the rules and the pleadings is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice."
• "It is the needs of the dominant estate which ultimately determines the width of the passage."
• "Payment of the value of the land for permanent use of the easement does not mean an alienation of the land occupied."
• "Verba legis non est recedendum." (When the law is clear, the function of the courts is simple application.)

• Woodridge School, Inc. v. ARB Construction Co., Inc. — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that indemnity for a legal easement of right of way for permanent passage consists of the value of the land occupied plus damages; distinguished by petitioners but held applicable by the Court because the right of way in that case was also for common use, not exclusive occupation.
• Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. (BAPCI) v. Obias — Cited for the distinction between Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari) and Rule 65 (certiorari as extraordinary remedy); used to justify treating the petition as filed under Rule 45.
• Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. v. Capitol Subd., Inc. — Cited by the RTC in its original decision for the four requisites of compulsory right of way: (1) surrounded by other immovables with no adequate outlet; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3) isolation not due to dominant estate's own acts; and (4) least prejudicial route at the shortest distance consistent therewith.

• Article 649, Civil Code — Governs the legal easement of right of way, requiring payment of proper indemnity and providing that for permanent passage, indemnity consists of the value of the land occupied and damages caused.
• Article 650, Civil Code — Provides that the easement shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, consistent therewith, at the shortest distance.
• Article 651, Civil Code — States that the width of the easement shall be sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate and may be changed from time to time.
• Article 655, Civil Code — Provides for the extinguishment of the easement when the dominant estate joins another abutting on a public highway, and the obligation to return the indemnity received.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Petition for Review on Certiorari; proper remedy to raise questions of law and fact (in exceptional circumstances) from CA decisions.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Certiorari; proper remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion when no appeal is available.
• Section 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court — Judicial admissions; admissions made in the course of proceedings bind the party making them.