David-Chan v. CA and Phil, Rabbit Bus Lines Inc.

(RIGHT OF WAY)

Doctrine: Resort to equity is possible only in the absence of, and never in contravention, of statutory
law.

FACTS: Petitioner filed with the RTC an amended petition with prayer of Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction, seeking to stop private respondent from fencing its property and depriving her access to the
highway.

Petitioner alleged that her property, consisting of around 635 square meters, situated in Del Pilar, San
Fernando, Pampanga and covered by TCT No. 57596-R, was delineated on its northern and western
sides by various business establishments. Adjoining her property along its southern boundary was the
land of the Pineda family, while along the east-northeastern boundary, and lying between her property
and the MacArthur Highway, was another lot with an area of approximately 161 square meters owned
by private respondent.

In other words, petitioner’s lot was almost completely surrounded by other immovable and cut off from
the highway. Her only access to the highway was a very small opening measuring two feet four inches
wide thru the property of private respondent. Petitioner further asserted that the prospective
subservient estate was a portion of a bigger lot and covered by a TCT and was formerly owned by the
Singian Brothers and was sold to private respondent without the knowledge and consent of petitioner,
who was thereby prevented from exercising her right of pre-emption or redemption.

Private respondent denied the allegations asserting that the parents or relatives of petitioner were
never tenants or lessees of the former owner; rather, they were found to have illegally occupying the
property as ruled by the MTC San Fernando Pampanga (petitioner was ordered to pay 2,000 jointly and
severally). They further said that the former owners were not obligated to inform petitioner of the sale;
and that the land sold by the Singian brothers was free from all liens and encumbrances as stated in the
DOAS.

SIngian Brothers were impleaded and averred that the complaint of petitioner stated no cause of action
because, being apparent and discontinuous, the right of way cannot be acquired by prescription. And
that petitioner had another access to the National highway which, however, was closed during the
pendency of the case at the trial court when she extended the construction of her fence.

ISSUE: Is petitioner legally entitled to a right of way thru private respondent’s property? In any event, is
she entitled to such easement thru recognition and application of the Filipino values of pakikisama and
pakikipagkapwa-tao?

HELD: No. Article 649 and 650 lay down the requisites: (1) the estate is surrounded by other immovables
and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity is paid: (3) the isolation is not
due to proprietor’s own acts; and (4) the right of way claimed is at a 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.

The respondent Court correctly ruled that petitioner is not without adequate outlet to a public highway.
It was plaintiff who built a concrete fence on the southern boundary of her property to separate it from
the property of the Pineda Family. Worse, she closed the 28-inch clearance which could use as a means
to reach the National Highway without passing thru the property of defendant. Petitioner likewise failed
to satisfy the third requirement as she caused her own isolation by closing her access thru the Pineda
property. Proper indemnity was likewise not proven by petitioner.

On the issue of equity, the SC held that equity is applied only in the absence of, and never against,
statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. There are rigorous standards to be complied with by owners
of the dominant estate before they may be granted with easement of right of way. Before such
inconvenience may be imposed by the Court, applicants must prove that they deserve judicial
intervention on the basis of law, and certainly not when their isolation is caused by their own acts.