March 10

27:31- 55:00: Rach

Atty: ...the rain falling on my roof will flow down and then drop on his property. It’s not allowed. That
property of your neighbor has an easement to be free of such drainage against you.

What else? You will find out that the servient estate is, what the servient estate is, when you get
married.

Sort of…

So what else? The property or the person who has the obligation to allow others to do something over
his property. For example, to pass through his property towards the public highway; that is the servient
estate.

Or, for example, like the easement of a party wall. There is a wall between your property and the
property of the adjoining owner. That could be a common wall which you and your neighbor would put
up separating your property; it’s placed on the boundary line. Ok?

You are not allowed to put a hole in that wall - that common wall. You are not allowed to do that so
that you can look at what's happening in your neighbor’s property. Ok. If your neighbor goes naked the
whole day, you are not allowed to see that. That’s why there is a wall. And you cannot… the easement
is you cannot violate that wall by having a hole there. OK?

So the kinds of easements… Ok, let me call you again. Karl?

A: The kinds of easements?

Number one, continuous easement versus discontinuous easements. So under continuous easement,
incessant without the intervention or act of man. While for the discontinuous easements: used at
intervals and depend on the acts of law.

Atty: What is an example of a continuous easement?

A: Sir, I think. For example, for drainage. A drainage.

Atty: Ok.

A: Then for discontinuous….

Atty: Let’s say in a drainage. Example, the land is quite inclined in a steep land; One part is higher and
one part is lower. And you are on the higher… your house is on the higher portion of that land and then
your neighbor, his house is lower.

The easement of drainage is that your neighbor must allow the water flowing from the higher place to
pass through his land. To pass through his land; and that is the easement. He cannot stop that; it will
be a continuous easement whether there is an intervention or act of man or not. Whether you know it
or not, when it rains, the water will always flow down.

When does the water flow down?

A: Sir, because it’s steep so it will…

Atty: Yes, because of gravity and your neighbor down there, must allow the water to flow through his
property.
Or… the easement of light and view. Even if your neighbor’s house is beside your house, he cannot
put… construct his house in such a way that is going to block the view of your window or the light
filtering through your window; it’s not allowed. And you see that in many places in Makati, the
highrises, if one the highrises, the walls are glasses- you have seen that one, glasses - the next one
should not block the view or the light filtering through those glasses into that skyscraper, you will
notice that they are not so close. There is a distance to allow that light. And that easement is ongoing
without the intervention of man. Ok?

What is the opposite of continuous easement?

A: It’s the discontinuous easement, sir. So it may mean the intervention of man or the act of man. So
for example, sir, roads - like roads, sir.

Atty: A right of way. Ok. Is that a discontinuous easement?

A: Yes, sir, because a vehicle which is driven by a person would have to… a vehicle would have to pass
that right of way, sir, and it would involve the act of man.

Atty: Yes, according to jurisprudence it is the right of way - the right of way is a discontinuous
easement - because it’s only when man steps on it or drives through it that the easement exists. That
is why it is discontinuous. That is jurisprudence.

Although, I do not actually agree so much with that one because if there are signs that this is a road,
the right of way is always there. But, the Supreme Court said it’s only when man himself passes
through that road is that when easement of right of way exists. That is the case of Bogo-Medillin, which
I assigned to you. Continue.

A: The second kinds of easements are the apparent easements and non-apparent easement.

So apparent easements are… those with external signs while non-apparent easements are those without
external signs.

Atty: Example of the first?

A: Sir, a road’s right of way.

Atty: Ok, why is it an apparent easement?

A: Sir, because there’s a sign you could see.

Atty: Like what?

A: Sir, like the speed limits.

Atty: No… well that is one.. But that is because of the police power of the State that can impose a
speed limit for the benefit of others and for your own benefit as well.

The signs that an easement exists, for example a road. How would a road? Especially in the city? How
do you know that there is a road?

A: Sir you could see it

Atty: Yeah, you could see it. And what are the signs of the road?

A: There are vehicles, usually.

Atty: Ok, the cement, right. The sidewalk.

A: The pedestrian lanes.

Atty: Even if it’s just a trail. You will notice that...all these grass, trees… but then there is a particular
way which is bare of grasses, and that is the path where it’s stating that there is a road there.

And non-apparent easement would be what?

A: Says here that those without external signs… Sir, for example, the one you mentioned where you
have the right… to see the view. That’s an example of non-apparent easement.

Atty: Anyway, we will be taking up the different kinds of examples of easements but these are the
kinds. And you have there...combinations like CA, what does that mean?

A: CA, sir, is continuous apparent easement.

Atty: CNA is?

A: Continuous non-apparent easement. And DNA is a discontinuous non-apparent easement.

Atty: What is a prime example, under jurisprudence...prime example of a discontinuous apparent

easement.

A: Sir, like you mentioned, the road’s right of way.

Atty: Ok, so road right of way; there are signs and it is discontinuous because the right is exercised only
when you put your foot - your feet - on the road.

Ok let me call another one…

Good morning. Ok, what are the other kinds of easement?

A: Sir, the third one would be positive easement versus negative easement. So, under positive
easement, it is allowing something to be done or doing it himself while negative easement, prohibiting
doing something that can be done if there was no easement.

Atty: Example of this one? Allowing someone to do something?

A: For positive easement, sir…

Atty: The right of way.

A: Right of way sir,

Atty: You have to allow the servient estate; the owner must allow the dominant estate - the people
there - to be able to pass through your property. You cannot stop them and if you stop them, what
happens, there could be a case unless you provide another way through your property.

And negative is?

A: For negative, sir, it is when you prohibit the owner from doing something which he could normally
do. For example, easement of light it’s when you prohibit something from the passage of light….

Atty: The light; they put up something there that would stop the light. Then that would be a negative
easement. If you had the right to do that, prohibiting the doing of something, for example, you have
land. You have a house there… Can anybody, like for example your adjoining owner, dig a hole - a
tunnel - under your property?

A: No, sir.
Atty: Does he have the right...so, that is the easement of subjacent support where you can, as the
owner of the dominant estate, you cannot allow anybody to just dig a hole under your property
because it can, for example, prejudice the support of your building.

And the next one?

A: The next one is legal easement versus voluntary easement. So, legal easement, it is established by
law, while voluntary easement, it is established by the will of the owner.

Atty: Ok.

A: The next one is public easement versus private easement…

Atty: Ok, established by law; what would be an example?

A: Uhh…

Atty: One of them, for example, is the right of the estate to build/construct a road even through your
property if it is necessary; if considered necessary for the estate.

And what is voluntary easement?

A: Voluntary...it is established by the will of the parties...will of the owners.

Atty: Ok, yes, for example?

A: For example…

Atty: There’s a project, the subway. It passed beneath and it may be necessary for the construction of
the subway to get the consent of the land owner. And, when the owner of the land gives that consent
then you would consider it as a voluntary easement.

Then, public easement, number 5?

A: Number 5 sir, public easement versus private easement. So for public easement, it is vested in the
public at large or in some class, indeterminate individuals, while private easement is vested in a
determinate individual or certain person.

Atty: Ok, that’s easy enough. Right of way would be that one; the right of way is exercised by the
public at large then it would be a public easement.

Ok, let’s take up acquisition.

A: For acquisition, easement or servitude may be acquired by, first, a title that is by judicial acts like
law, donation, contracts, or, will, and this applies to all the possible combinations discussed earlier.

Atty: For example, you have a property but you don’t have access to the highway; to the public road.
You are enclosed by… so you ask your neighbor, the one whose property is between your property and
the highway, you ask him for a right of way. But he doesn’t like your face, ok… he doesn’t know. So he
refused to give you a right of way. So what can you do?

A: Sir, I could ask the court to declare that there is a right of way there so that it won’t be…

Atty: No, not to declare but, rather, to...you’re asking for that. It’s an action for right of way in your
favor and if you are able to prove the requirements - the requisites- for a right of way, then the court
will grant you that right of way and order your neighbor to allow you to have access to the highway by
passing through his property. That is by title, because it’s a judicial action of the court… the court
action awarding you that right of way and ordering the other, your neighbor, to respect your right of
way. Ok?

But if he still doesn’t like your face, so he puts up an obstacle, what will you do?

A: Sir, it should be just by that judicial order alone, he shouldn’t be allowed to put up that obstacle.

Atty: You go to court for a writ of execution or for any ruling to stop... sort of defend your right of
way. Ok, that’s it. You don’t shoot that guy or bulldoze the obstacle that he has noh?

Number two?

A: For number two, acquisition through prescription of 10 years through adverse possession or frequent
exercises. And this applies only to a continuous apparent easement...either positive from the day the
dominant owner begins to exercise it, like a party wall. Or, it could be negative from the day in which
notarial prohibition is made on the servient owner not to obstruct the passage of light.

Atty: Ok, and you will learn the prescription has a period of 10 years. When you already...when your
exercise of that easement has lasted for 10 years, the servient...the owner of this servient estate
cannot complain anymore and he cannot obstruct or stop your exercise of that because you already
have...the easement… you have been doing it for 10 years and he hasn’t stopped you at all. Ok?

A: Number three, acquisition by deed of recognition by servient owner, like right of way.

Atty: Ok, number four?

A: Number four, final judgment as when a court declares existence in an action filed for the purpose.

Atty: Ok, that would be the same as title. Number five?

A: Number five, apparent sign established by owner of two adjoining estates then one estate is
alienated and the easement continues, actively or passively, unless at the time of division, it is
provided that the easement will cease or the sign removed before execution of deed.

Atty: Ok, that’s the sign… when you have the dominant estate divided into two, then both portions
should enjoy that right of way from the easement that has been existing before the subdivision.

Ok, any question on the acquisition of easement and servitude?

A: Sir I have a question sir.

Atty: First of all, notice here that the ownership of property is never absolute as you will...it’s always
subject sometimes to the needs and requirements of other persons. Just ask your neighbors, ok? It’s
always done. You cannot have any absolute ownership like what they have during the middle ages when
the king had an absolute right to do what he wants with the property even if what he will do is going to
prejudice other people, like the neighbors or adjoining property owners. He can do it because he wants
it; that is the absolute right.

What’s the question herschel?

A: I’m just confused sir. What’s the difference between acquisition through title and final judgment.

Atty: Yes, I’m confused myself. It’s almost the same actually. Here, it can be judicial acts, like law or
donation. For example, you have the...number four is a court judgment. Titles could include a court
judgment, or a law, or donation.
I have a land, I subdivided it, I’m the one fronting my portion which I...which is left with me, is
fronting the road. The other portion of my land, which I subdivided, is behind me. It has no access to
the land. So, I’m going to sell it, by contract. Or, I’m going to donate it to somebody.

If I’m going to sell it, do you think somebody will buy that portion of my land when there is no access
to the highway? Will you buy?

A: No.

Atty: You...I tell you… You know, Herschel, the land...the portion I’m selling you has some fruit trees
ok? It has a pond… Why don’t you buy it?

A: Sir, because I have no way of getting to that land, sir.

Atty: Yes, there’s no way there’s...there is no? Access.

So what will you ask from me? From me, who is offering to sell you the back portion of my land?

A: SIr, ask for a right of way sir?

Atty: You will ask me for a right of way and you want that stated in the deed of sale. Right? So, I
include it in the deed of sale that you will have a right of way through my land and specifying where
exactly that right of way will be located. Ok?

So, what is that right of way? Is that by title?

A: Uh...it’s by….yes, sir. It’s by title.

Atty: Specifically, that title is the contract; the deed of sale. Right?

Now, for final judgment, more specifically when you have to file…. Ok...you bought it! My land; that
back portion? But without...we never agreed to a right of way and later on I did not want…I refused to
give you a right of way. You already have my land, what do you want more?

Can you say I want a right of way? Ay, no that’s not part of our contract; the deed of sale. So, what will
happen?

A: I have to file for an action for right of way in part sir?

Atty: Ok, and if you win it because you are able to prove the requirements for a right of way and the
judge was convinced that you deserved...you really should have a right of way because you were able
to prove the requirements, then he will render what you call a?

A: Uh…

Atty: What do you ask from a judge in a court case? He will render… a decision granting you the right of
way and ordering the defendant there, me, that you should be given a right of way. Ok, and still I...no,
I don’t want to even if there was already a decision. So, what wll you do?

A: Uh...final…

Atty: Will you show me the copy of the decision? So what, that’s just a piece of paper. What will you
do?

A: Sir, that decision already has the force of the law. So, I can enforce it already.

Atty: How do you enforce a decision?

A: Sir….

Atty: Have you taken up civil procedure?

A: No sir…

Atty: Then you will have to...you move in court for the issuance of the writ of execution. Ok? Once it’s
granted it’s the sheriff, by the court the authority, which will enforce the right of way. Or enforce the
decision granting you the right of way. Ok?

A: Yes sir.

Atty: I thought you have taken up civil procedure?

A: No sir.

Atty: Ah but that is the way to do it… you don’t get a shotgun and kill - shoot him - for refusing and
saying that the court has already given me a right of way...

March 15
26:30 - 53:00: Rach

Atty: ...which is sort of...you know, meandering...so no, it should be straight. Ok? And the payment of
proper indemnity if the use is really continuous and permanent. And if that right of way is being used
by the servient...and by the dominant, they can share in the expenses for the maintenance and the
repair of that right of way. Continue.

A: Sir… width of the right of way must be sufficient to the needs of the dominant estate that may be
changed from time to time.

Atty: Yes, it must be sufficient but not too much. Ok? If, for example, it is a usual road, best for cars,
it should be that one. The minimum, I think, is 10 meters or it can be more.

If you have a private plane, you cannot insist on a 50 meter wide road for your plane to land on or to
take off. No, that is not what is provided by law. Ok, any questions so far?

A: Sir, I have a question.

Atty: Yes, yes, Karl?

A: Regarding the requisites for the easements of right of way: I was wondering if the third requisite,
which is the right of way absolutely necessary not mere convenience. Is it a hard and fast rule? Because
I was just thinking of an instance, what of the...what if there is a way to an alternative way to the
highway but it is significantly further than the…farther

Atty: Difficulty? Significantly...hello? Far?

A: Yes sir. If it’s, for example, the alternative way is an hour longer than that if you just had an
easement, could that be an exception, sir, or is it really a hard and fast rule that you can….
Atty: Then you can really say that it’s necessary - the right of way is necessary - because the
alternative is quite far. You see, it is actually for the judge to determine, really, to judge whether that
is mere convenience on your part or if it is really necessary.

Like, for instance, you can say that that’s 1km away and most of the people needing a right of way do
not have cars or vehicles. It’s very very inconvenient for them to walk one kilometer away when the
servient estate can provide a way which is only about 100 meters away. That’s up to you to argue and
it depends on how you can convince the judge. Ok?

A: So in that case, it would really be up to the judge to determine if it’s just for convenience?

Atty: Yes, I think so… Oo. Otherwise, if the alternative way is, let’s say, gravel and sand only; it’s not
pavement and so and so forth...you want to ask for a right of way, it may be told that it’s sufficient for
you; not the right of way that you’re asking through the property of another of the servient estate
when there is another way.

We have one case where there...he...I joined in this subdivision, it’s a piece of land - a small one - and
the owner wants to develop it into another subdivision, a small one, it’s less than one hectare actually,
and, he wants to have a right of way to the adjoining subdivision using the road of the adjoining
subdivision towards the public highway. Is that ok? When he has actually… there is another road, which
is not paved but gravel and sand, and it is passing through, what you call, a squatter area or slum area
to the highways.

Now, what do you think? Can he be given a right of way?

A: No, sir…

Atty: But the alternative road is actually quite narrow - gravel and sand - and passing through a slum
area to the road. Now, you want to develop your land into a residential subdivision. You will not be
able to attract buyers to your residential lands. Right? Because they say, “Oh! Your...We will be passing
through a slum area, gravel and sand and so on and so forth…”

A: Sir I think… that would just be for mere convenience and it’s not necessary.

Atty: Yes, precisely I was saying that idea of mere convenience, is that really mere convenience or it’s
a difficult alternative road.

A: Sir, I think it’s just for mere convenience. So, it’s not really...it is more difficult but it’s not….like,
for example, a significantly longer way.

Atty: So, it’s really a better alternative thing, if you as the owner of that land which you would want to
develop into your subdivision but the alternative way is through that slum area etc. Then it’s really up
to you to make a decision, I would advise you to ask for a right of way through the adjoining
subdivision. The road of the adjoining subdivision, ok? The road is already there, and you are...we are
willing to pay for the use of that road; a compensation - a due - to show their part of the expenses for
the maintenance and repair of that road. That’s what we did with respect to our subdivision, which is
actually...we’re using the main road of the adjoining subdivision towards the public highway.

We contribute and we abide by the rules that we cannot, for example, use a bulldozer or a 10-wheeler.
We have to use cars, like the other residents of that adjoining subdivision. Ok?

You are a lawyer, convenience necessary etc. to you it may be absolutely necessary or mere
convenience ok? To another lawyer, no it’s not; it is really necessary because the alternative is very
inconvenient and I, as a lawyer, can justify, with my eloquence and my…. Right?

You cannot just accept when your wife tells you: “Sit down!” or “Eat this!” You are, afterall, a lawyer.
Ok?
OK, the next paragraph, who is that one…

A: If the enclosed estate was sold by the owner of the surrounding estate, he must give right of way. If
it was by donation, and not sale, indemnities due to the donor for the exercise of the right of way.

If vendors then become isolated, he may demand right of way but with indemnity to the buyer. No
indemnity is due if donation.

Atty: Ok, you have a big track of land- several thousand square meters - and it is along the highway,
the road. You subdivide your land. Let’s say, into two.

The first part is fronting the road - alongside the road - the second part is behind the first part. If the
enclosed estate was sold by the owner of the surrounding estate, he must give right of way. You
decided to sell the one behind, the portion that is behind, to another person who is stupid enough to
buy it. What must you give that owner who bought it from you?

A: Sir, you must give the buyer a right of way so he…

Atty: Through your land.. Ok. It can either be an exhaustive road...already along your..through your
land or any other portion that you will grant it. And the minimum is usually 10 meters if a car is
necessary, or 3 meters if it’s just a path. Ok?

Is there a need, for the one who bought the property behind you, to pay for the right of way through
your property?

A: He may indemnify the owner...he may pay the owner.

Atty: He must pay a fee to the servient owner. Right? What if the servient owner actually donated the
property behind him to his favorite nephew?

A: Sir, there could be no payment or indemnification in cases of donation.

Atty: Yeah, if donation… No, but it’s the opposite… read it again

A: I understand it as no indemnity is due if it’s a donation, sir.

Atty: There is no indemnity required.

A: No indemnity required; no payment required.

Atty: Ok so, next paragraph.

A: The dominant estate...estate to shoulder costs necessary for repair in proportionate share of taxes.

Atty: Ok, next.

A: Easement or right of way extinguished if:

First, isolated estate is joined to estate...bounding the public road. And, second, the opening of new
public roads give access to the estate.

Atty: Ok, so I think… the distinguishment of road right of way is quite clear right? If there is a road
that...reaching your property then you may have to...your right of way through the property through
another will be extinguished because you already had that access.

Party wall. Patrica...

A: Hi sir.
Atty: Good morning. Meaning of party wall; ok. What do you mean by party wall?

A: So, a party wall is a common wall separating two estates built by common agreement at the dividing
line of the occupying equal portions of the estate. The party wall is co-owned or part owned.

Atty: Ok, so that is a party wall. If you were the one alone who constructed the wall separating your
land from the adjoining property, your neighbor, that wall will have to be constructed entirely within
your boundary right? Ok.

But if you agree to agree with your neighbor to construct a party wall, that party wall can be on the
party line; on the boundary line. Ok. That’s what you call a party wall.

The contrary exterior signs of that one are?

A: Some exterior signs that is contrary to the existence of an easement of party wall are: first, there is
no opening in the wall, and, second, the entire wall is built within the boundaries of one estate.

Atty: Ok that’s it...and you were one who...that is not a party wall because the party wall must have
been constructed by your neighbor and yourself and that would be straddling the boundary line.

And...when there is a party wall, really, you cannot cut a hole...because that is a party wall. Without
the consent also without an agreement with your neighbor, then you cannot do that. Unless, of course,
the wall is made up of wires only or barbed wires, you can really see through another.

What are the rights and obligations in case of a party wall?

A: The first right or obligation is the cost of repair and maintenance is proportionate to the right of
use.

The second, one may waive the easement to avoid sharing in the costs, except if party wall supports
his building.

Third, every owner may raise the height of the party wall, but at his own expenses.

And lastly, every part-owner of a party wall may use it in proportion to his right ot the co-ownership
without interfering with the common and respective uses of the other co-owners.

Atty: Ok, that’s it. Number three, for instance, you can draw only a wall inside your property. You can
draw whatever you want there depending on your liking and your mood.

Ok, that's a party wall. Any question on the party wall or on the right of way?

A: Sir? Just wanted to ask or clarifly lang po, like with the right of way. If the enclosed state was sold
by the owner, does the buyer need to pay indemnities for the use of right of way?

Atty: If the buyer...yeah..if it’s a lot then it was subdivided… and…

A: And then it was sold?

Atty: And then...therefore?

A: Does the buyer need to pay indemnity to the owner to enjoy the right of way?

Atty: For the right of way? It says here, if it was by donation, and not sale, indemnity is due to the
donor for the exercise of the right of way. But if it’s a sale, then he may have to indemnity if he wants
it…
Better still, if you were the lawyer of the one who’s buying the property, what would you tell him;
advise him?

A: Because it says here, that the owner or the seller must give right of way…

Atty: So what do you do if you were the lawyer of the buyer before he buys it?

A: I will confirm first with the seller if they will grant a free right of way?

Atty: Yes, you tell the seller to give you a right of way otherwise you will not buy that property.

A: Ok, and then if it's a donation….

Atty: What do you think will happen?

A: Maybe the seller, will just give me the right of way so that can dispose of the property quickly.

Atty: That’s a very good lawyer-adviser.

But, if you are given a right of way through your property, which is yet undeveloped, and you plan to
develop it in the future into something, then if you are going give that right of way to the one at the
back, you must provide it in the deed of sale that you, as the owner in the servient estate, can
relocate that right of way anywhere in your property, especially if it’s necessary for the purpose of
developing your land.

You want that because, otherwise, if the dominant owner, who has that right of way, refuses to
relocate that right of way within your property, then you will have some problems. So always have that
in mind that you will be able to situate or relocate the right of way somewhere else in your property.
Especially necessary for the development of your property.

A: just to clarify, if it’s a case of a donation, then the recipient or the person who received the land
should pay?

Atty: Yes, oo. That’s right. Of course, that is the rule. But if you are the donor, and you’re a very kind
person - a charitable person - you go to mass everyday, you receive communion everyday, and you
made a donation to your favorite nephew, what will you do?

A: If it’s my favorite nephew, I’ll just waive the payment for the right of way.

Atty: Ok, you will not demand indemnity payment. You will tell your nephew, “Why don’t keep that,
donate it, or you give that money to someone else who needs it.” Ok? Like your other nephew, who is
starving.

By the way, I handled a case for easement of right of way for clients. They owned this land, but it is
enclosed, and there is a subdivision in front, between their land and the public highway. They asked
the owner of the subdivision if they can have a right of way, they refused because the owner wants to
buy their land which they do not like. So, I had to file a case and I had to prove all these requisites in
that case. We won it, he was given a right of way that would sort of open the wall of the subdivision
and then connect to the main road of the subdivision. In other words, the right of way would be
through the main road also. They’re using the main road.

And they brought it up to the Supreme Court, we won it still up to the Supreme Court. When the
decision became final, I moved for execution already. And the lawyer of the...my opponent lawyer said
that the decision granted in favor of my client cannot be executed - it’s impossible for execution.

Why? Because the decision does not state how many is 12 inches of the wall had to be demolished in
order to, for my client’s right of way to pass through. Because, when we filed the case the other
subdivision was constructing the wall exactly on that portion; not on the whole land, but on that
portion. When I asked for a writ of execution, my opponent lawyer said, “It doesn’t mention how many
square meters of the wall will have to be demolished,” and I had to say that “No, the decision says
demolish the wall. The whole wall, not how many inches, square-inches, or square-feet, but the wall
itself.”

So when the trial court granted my motion for execution, he went to the CA to appeal that up to the
Supreme Court. And then, we won that case, so the wall will be demolished. And you know what he
did? He sold the shoulder...to another corporation which I knew was just a subsidiary of that… so they
said, “They cannot pass through that because it is owned by somebody else; another corporation. Not
the corporation which was the defendant in our case.” And I said...the lawyer of that other corporation
appeared in court when we were hearing the execution aspect. And they said, “We are going to...that
decision granted to give right of way cannot affect them because they are now the owner of that
shoulder of about 20 meters long.”

And I said, “What was the purpose of this sale; of that part of that shoulder?” And they said, “Well, he
intends to put up a building...to construct a building on that shoulder. And I said, “What kind of
building can you construct on a 3-meter wide shoulder? I think that building will be as narrow as your
mind, counsel…” Finally, we were able to get that right of way. Ok.

But that’s how…sometimes you will experience such crazy things in your...in litigation….