Mejorada vs. Vertudazo

An owner of an immovable surrounded by other immovables without adequate outlet to a public highway is entitled to demand a compulsory right of way through neighboring estates after payment of proper indemnity, where isolation was not due to the owner's own acts and the way is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

Sometime in 1981, Glorificacion and Sol Vertudazo and their co-respondents established their permanent residence on a 300-square meter lot at Telaje, Tandag, Surigao del Sur. The property was landlocked, bordered on all sides by different lots. As access to Quiñones Street and the public highway, they utilized a proposed undeveloped barangay road on the south side owned by Rosario Quiñones.

In 1988, spouses Manuel and Rosalinda Mejorada bought Rosario's 646-square meter lot adjacent to respondents' property. Included therein was an area measuring 55.5 square meters serving as an adequate outlet to Quiñones Street. For several years, respondents and the general public used that area as a passageway to and from Quiñones Street.

On July 2, 1997, petitioners closed the passageway by building a new garage for their service jeep. Respondents brought the matter to the barangay concerned, but no settlement was reached. Respondents then filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court praying for grant of easement of right of way with application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. According to petitioners, there was an alternate route although long, circuitous and muddy; respondents' isolation was due to their construction of a fence fronting petitioners' house which made maneuvering the service jeep difficult; respondents never offered to pay compensation; and the easement was not shown to be at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

During the hearing, the trial court ordered the passageway opened during the day and closed in the evening during the pendency of the case. Petitioners agreed to open it daily from five o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock in the evening and volunteered their service jeep for emergencies at night. The application for injunction was then declared moot and the case archived to allow amicable settlement. Petitioners did not abide with the commitment. Thus, on March 5, 1998, respondents filed joint motions to cite petitioners in contempt and to revive the application for preliminary mandatory injunction, leading to injunctive relief and trial on the merits.

The lower courts factually found that no other road leading to Quiñones Street was available to respondents except the passageway on petitioners' property, that respondents offered proper indemnity, that the isolation was not due to respondents' acts, and that the 55.5-square meter easement was located at the corner of petitioners' landholding.

• Existence of Alternate Route: Petitioner argued that there is an alternate route which respondents have been using although it was long, circuitous and muddy.
• Isolation Due to Respondents' Acts: Petitioner maintained that the isolation of respondents' property was due to their construction of a fence fronting the house of petitioners, which made it difficult to maneuver their service jeep and constrained them to construct a new garage.
• Non-Payment of Indemnity: Petitioner argued that respondents never offered to pay compensation for the right of way.
• Point Least Prejudicial: Petitioner maintained that respondents failed to show that the easement is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

• Entitlement to Compulsory Easement of Right of Way: Whether respondents are entitled to the easement of right of way on the property owned by petitioners.

• Entitlement to Compulsory Easement of Right of Way: Yes. Respondents are entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, all four requisites under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code having been satisfied.

• Entitlement to Compulsory Easement of Right of Way: A legal or compulsory easement may be demanded only upon establishment of four requisites: (a) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and without adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) payment of proper indemnity; (c) isolation was not due to the proprietor's own acts; and (d) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. First, no other road leading to Quiñones Street was available except the passageway on petitioners' property. Second, proper indemnity had been offered, with the trial court ordering joint and several payment of the value of the 55.5-square meter passageway as determined by a committee of three assessors. Third, the isolation was not due to respondents' acts. Fourth, the easement was at the point least prejudicial, being located at the corner of petitioners' landholding and causing no inconvenience. Accordingly, reversal of the Court of Appeals affirmance was unwarranted.

• Easement; Dominant and Servient Estates — An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner; the immovable in whose favor the easement is established is the dominant estate, while that subject thereto is the servient estate. Here, respondents' landlocked property was the dominant estate and petitioners' property burdened with the passageway was the servient estate.
• Compulsory Easement of Right of Way; Four Requisites — A legal or compulsory easement is constituted by law for public use or private interest. Under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code, entitlement requires: (a) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and without adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) payment of proper indemnity; (c) isolation was not due to the proprietor's own acts; and (d) the right of way is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. All four were found satisfied, justifying the decreed easement over the 55.5-square meter lot.
• Location of Easement of Right of Way — The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, insofar as consistent with that rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to the public highway is shortest. Application of this rule supported the location at the corner of petitioners' landholding as causing no inconvenience.

• "Easement has been defined as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner." — Defines easement and frames the dominant-servient estate relationship applied to respondents' and petitioners' lots.
• "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. xxx" — States the statutory basis for demanding a compulsory right of way upon payment of indemnity.
• "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." — States the controlling rule on the location of the easement, applied to sustain the corner passageway.

• Sta. Maria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127549, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 351 — Cited as authority for the four requisites that must be established to claim a legal or compulsory right of way.
• La Vista Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95252, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 498 — Cited, together with Vda. de Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, Locsin vs. Climaco, and Angela Estate vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, as authority for the four requisites of compulsory easement of right of way.

• Article 613, New Civil Code — Defines easement and distinguishes dominant and servient estates; applied to characterize respondents' property as dominant estate and petitioners' property as servient estate.
• Article 649, New Civil Code — Grants the owner or real-right holder of an immovable surrounded by other immovables without adequate outlet to a public highway the right to demand a right of way through neighboring estates after payment of proper indemnity; applied to sustain respondents' demand.
• Article 650, New Civil Code — Requires the easement to be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, consistently therewith, at the shortest distance to the public highway; applied to sustain the 55.5-square meter passageway at the corner of petitioners' lot.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Corona, Azcuna, Garcia, JJ.