WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs.

ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC., G.R. No. 157285, February 16, 2007

FACTSOFTHECASE
:Woodridge is the usufructuary of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title(TCT)
No. T-363902 in the name of spouses Ernesto T. Matugas and Filomena U. Matugas. Itscopetitioner, Miguela JimenezJavier, is the registered owner of the adjacent lot under TCT No.T330688. On the other hand, ARB is the owner and developer of Soldiers Hills Subdivision
inB a c o o r , C a v i t e , w h i c h i s c o m p o s e d o f f o u r p h a s e s . P h a s e I o f t h e
s u b d i v i s i o n w a s a l r e a d y accessible from the Marcos Alvarez Avenue. To provide the same
accessibility to the residents of Phase II of the subdivision, ARB constructed the disputed road to
link the two phases.As found by the appellate court, petitioners properties sit right in the middle
of severalestates: Phase I of Soldiers Hills Subdivision in the north, a creek in the
east and Green ValleySubdivision the farther east, a road within Soldiers Hills
Subdivision IV which leads to theMarcos Alvarez Avenue in the west and Phase III
of Soldiers Hills Subdivision in the south. Initially, petitioners offered to pay ARB P50,000
as indemnity for the use of the road. Adamant,ARB refused the offer and fenced the perimeter of
the road fronting the properties of petitioners.By doing so, ARB effectively cut off petitioners
access to and from the public highway.Petitioners argue that the contested road lot is a property
of public dominion pursuant toArticle 420 of the Civil Code. Specifically, petitioners
point out that the disputed road lot falls u n d e r t h e c a t e g o r y o t h e r s o f s i m i l a r
c h a r a c t e r w h i c h i s t h e l a s t c l a u s e o f Ar t i c l e 4 2 0 ( 1 ) . Hence, it is a property of
public dominion which can be used by the general public without needfor compensation.
Consequently, it is wrong for ARB to exclude petitioners from using the roadlot or to make them
pay for the use of the same.Petitioners also assert that their initial offer of P50,000 should be
sufficient compensationfor the right of way. Further, they should not be held accountable for the
increase in the value of the property since the delay was attributable to the stubborn refusal of
ARB to accept their offer.
ISSUE:
Whether the offer of P50,000 is a sufficient compensation for the right of way
RULINGOFTHECOURT:
In the case of a legal easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code prescribes the parameters bywhich
the proper indemnity may be fixed. Since the intention of petitioners is to establish
a permanent passage, the second paragraph of Article 649 of the Civil Code particularly applies: