33 Ramos Sr. v. Gatchalian Realty, Inc., Asprec, CA et.al.

belonging to a different owner as defined in Article 613 of the

[G.R. No. 75905. October 12, 1987.] Civil Code. It is established either by law, in which case it is
Requisites of the Easement
called legal or by the will of the parties, in which event it is a
voluntary easement.
Facts:
Petitioner Ramos is the owner of a house and lot acquired from
Since there is no agreement between the contending parties in
Sobrina Rodriguez Lombos Subdivision (Sobrina Subdivision). In
this case granting a right of way by one in favor of the other, the
the subdivision survey plan, two road lots abut petitioner's
establishment of a voluntary easement between the plaintiff and
property namely lot 4133-G-12 with an area of 2,160 square
the respondent company and/or the other private respondents is
meters clearly appearing as a proposed road in the Lombos
ruled out. What is left to examine is whether the plaintiff is
subdivision plan and Lot 4135 of the Parañaque Cadastre, now
entitled to a legal or compulsory easement of a right of way.
known as Palanyag Road but more commonly referred to as
Gatchalian Avenue.
A compulsory right of way cannot be obtained unless the
following four requisites are first shown to exist:
Respondents Asprec own Lot 4135. Gatchalian Avenue is
(1) That it is surrounded by other immovables and has no
alongside Lot 4135. (confused ko actually ani Lot 4135, lahi mn gyd siguro
adequate outlet to a public highway (Art. 649, par. 1);
nxas Gatchalian Ave.) Respondent Gatchalian Realty Inc. (Gatchalian)
(2) After payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, p. 1.
was granted the road right of way and drainage along Lot 4135
end);
to service the Gatchalian and Asprec subdivisions, by the
(3) That the isolation was not due to (petitioner’s) own acts
respondent Asprecs.
(Art. 649, last par.); and
(4) That the right of way claimed is "at the point least
On April 30, 1981, a complaint for an easement of a right of
prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as
way with preliminary mandatory injunction was filed by
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the
Ramos against the private respondents. Among the allegations
dominant estate to a public highway may be the
are:
shortest." (Art.650).
- that petitioner constructed his house at 27 Gatchalian
Avenue and has since resided therein with his family
On the first requisite, the Court finds no reason to disturb the
from 1977 up to the present;
appellate court's finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove
- that during construction of the house, Gatchalian built a
the non-existence of an adequate outlet to the Sucat Road
7-8 feet high concrete wall right in front of appellant's
except through the Gatchalian Avenue. As borne out by the
premises, blocking his entrance/exit to Gatchalian Road,
records of the case, there is a road right of way provided by
the nearest, most convenient and adequate
Sobrina Subdivision indicated as Lot 4133-G-12 in its subdivision
entrance/exit to the public road or highway, the Sucat
plan for the buyers of its lots. The fact that said lot is still
Road;
undeveloped and causes inconvenience to the plaintiff when he
- that prior to this, the parties have agreed to allow
uses it to reach the public highway does not bring him within the
appellant to exercise a right of way on the subject
ambit of the legal requisite.
premises upon payment of proper indemnity, with the
request that appellant inform defendants Asprec of their
The Court agree with the appellate court's observation that the
agreement, which appellant has so informed;
plaintiff should have, first and foremost, demanded from Sobrina
- that with the construction of the concrete wall,
Subdivision the improvement and maintenance of Lot 4133-G-12
appellant and his family have been constrained to pass
as his road right of way because it was from said subdivision
through the back portion of their lot bounded by other
that he acquired his lot and not either from Gatchalian Realty or
lots belonging to different owners, which is grassy and
the respondents Asprec.
cogonal as temporary ingress/egress with great
inconvenience and hardship, and this becomes all the
To allow the plaintiff access to Sucat Road through Gatchalian
more pronounced during the rainy season due to flood
Avenue in spite of a road right of way provided by the plaintiff's
and mud;
subdivision for its buyers simply because Gatchalian Avenue
- and, lastly, that the aforesaid concrete wall is
allows plaintiff a much greater ease in going to and coming from
dangerously leaning towards appellant's premises
the main thoroughfare is to completely ignore what
posing great danger or hazard.
jurisprudence has consistently maintained through the years
regarding an easement of a right of way, that "mere
Respondents assailed the above petitions.
convenience for the dominant estate is not enough to serve as
its basis. To justify the imposition of this servitude, there must
The lower court eventually dismissed the complaint for
be a real, not a fictitious or artificial, necessity for it."
insufficiency of evidence.
Considering that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of
On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower court’s order and found
the first requisite as aforestated, the Court finds it unnecessary
that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the pre-
to discuss the rest of the preconditions for a legal or compulsory
conditions in order that he could legally be entitled to an
right of way.
easement of a right of way.

Issue: Whether the plaintiff has successfully shown that all the
requisites necessary for the grant of an easement of a right of
way in his favor are present.

Ruling:
No. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed
upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable