ALICIA B. REYES, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO S.

VALENTIN
and NATALIA RAMOS, respondents.
G.R. No. 194488. February 11, 2015.

LEONEN, J. ponente

FACTS:
Petitioner Alicia Reyes alleges that she was the registered owner of a 450sq.m. parcel
of land located in Bulacan is being surrounded by Respondent Spouses Ramos' 1500
sq.m. property. Petitioner also alleges that the respondent's property is the only
adequate outlet from her property to the Highway. Thus, the petitioner sought for
easement of respondent's vacant portion near the boundary of respondent's other lot.

Upon Ocular Inspection Report, the trial court issued that the easement of right of way
for Petitioner is denied because it was not the least onerous to the servient estate of the
respondents. The decision was affirmed in toto by CA because petitioner Reyes failed
to discharge the burden of proving the existence of the requisites for the grant of
easement.

Petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to consider that it was not her property that
was adjacent to the irrigation canal but her sister's. The fact that she had to construct a
bridge over the irrigation canal supported her position that there was indeed no
adequate outlet from her property to the public road.

Respondents argue that the case was already barred by prior judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether the Petitioner has the compulsory easement of right of way over the
respondent's property.

RULING:
NO.
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.
“Distance” is considered only insofar as it is consistent to the requirement of “least
prejudice.” This court had already affirmed the preferred status of the requirement of
“least prejudice” over distance of the dominant estate to the public highway. Thus, in
Quimen v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 163 (1996), 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.

It is true that an easement of right of way may be granted even if the construction of the
bridge was allowed. However, in determining if there is an adequate outlet or if the
choice of easement location is least prejudicial to the servient estate, this court cannot
disregard the possibility of constructing a bridge over the four-meter-wide canal. This
court must consider all the circumstances of the case in determining whether petitioner
was able to show the existence of all the conditions for the asement of right of way.
NAGA CENTRUM, INC., represented by AIDA KELLY YUBUCO, petitioner, vs.
SPOUSES RAMON J. ORZALES and NENITA F. ORZALES, respondents.
G.R. No. 203576. September 14, 2016.

DEL CASTILLO, J.: ponente

FACTS:
The Respondent Spouses Orzales owns a house and lot situated at Naga City which
their access to the public highway was through petitioner Naga Centrum Inc.'s property.
When the squatters inhabiting said place were evicted, the now owner Naga Centrum
caused the street to be closed with a concrete fence. Though they are allowed to pass
through the steel gate of Naga Centrum, they are however subject to the schedule set
by the latter. The respondents then prompted for a court intervention after the
petitioner's refusal of the offer to buy a portion of lot for right of way.

The petitioner alleged that the property became isolated due to their own acts and there
is an existing passageway leading to their lot available.

Moreover, upon ocular inspection, the only access for the Respondent spouses is the
petitioner's property and an existing passageway that the latter is contending was not
proven.
During the pendency of this civil case, Petitioner deliberately blocked respondent's
access by constructing a building thereon, dumping filling materials and junk on the
main gate of the respondent's home, and converting portions of the road into an auto
repair shop and parking space.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner's contention be tenable that respondent cannot have a right of way
over the site because there are already structures.

RULING:
No. The Respondent's has the right of way.

A party cannot be allowed to influence and manipulate the courts’ decisions by

performing acts upon the disputed property — during the pendency of the case — which
would allow it to achieve the objectives it desires.

Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, “(e)very person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.” Under Article 26, “(e)very person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors.” Petitioner’s action betrays a
perverse and deliberate intention to hurt and punish respondents for legally demanding
a right-of-way which it nevertheless knew was forthcoming, and which, considering the
size of its land, it may give without the least prejudice to its own rights.