oflodoR-Rodolfo

Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals

193 SCRA 333

Facts:

It is admitted that the petitioner owns the real estate properties of the Opon Cadastre on which it had constructed a resort and hotel. The private respondents, on the other hand, are the owners of adjoining.

Before the petitioner began the construction of its beach hotel, the private respondents, in going to and from their respective properties and the provincial road, passed through a passageway which traversed the petitioner’s property. In 1981, the petitioner closed the aforementioned passageway when it began the construction of its hotel, but nonetheless opened another route across its property through which the private respondents, as in the past, were allowed to pass.

In the same complainant, the private respondents likewise alleged that the petitioner had constructed a dike on the beach fronting the latter’s property without the necessary permit, obstructing the passage of the residents and local fishermen, and trapping debris and flotsam on the beach. They also claimed that the debris and flotsam that had accumulated prevented them from using their properties for the purpose for which they had acquired them. The complaint thus prayed for the trial court to order the re-opening of the original passageway across the petitioner’s property as well as the destruction of the dike.

However, private respondents failed to indicate in their complaint or to manifest during the trial of the case that they were willing to indemnify fully the petitioner for the right of way to be established over its property. Neither have the private respondents been able to show that the isolation of their property was not due to their personal or their predecessors-in-interest’s own acts. Finally, the private respondents failed to allege, much more introduce any evidence, that the passageway they seek to be re-opened is at a point least prejudicial to the petitioner. It is therefore of great importance that the claimed right of way over the petitioner’s property be located at a point least prejudicial to its business.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court committed grave abused?

Held:

Repondent’s complaint is dismissed.

While a right of way is legally demandable, the owner of the dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based on arbitrary choice. Under Article 650 of the Code, it shall be established upon two criteria: (1) at the point least prejudicial to the servient state; and (2) where the distance to a public highway may be the shortest. According, however, to one commentator, “least prejudice” prevails over “shortest distance.”  Yet, each case must be weighed according to its individual merits, and judged according to the sound discretion of the court. “The court,” says Tolentino, “is not bound to establish what is the shortest; a longer way may be established to avoid injury to the servient tenement, such as when there are constuctions or walls which can be avoided by a roundabout way, or to secure the interest of the dominant owner, such as when the shortest distance would place the way on a dangerous decline

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Case Digest | China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals
2. Case Digest | Titong v. Court of Appeals
3. Property Case Digest | Heirs of Marciano Nagano v. Court of Appeals
4. Case Digest | Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
5. Property Case Digest | Jose De Luna v. Court of Appeals, Hon.Santiago Maliwanag, Juan Dimaano, Jr.,
6. Case Digest | Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals
7. Property Case Digest | Sps. Pingol v. Court of Appeals
8. Case Digest | Solis v. Court of Appeals
9. Property Case Digest | Solid Manila Corporation v. Bio Hong Trading C., Inc.
10. Property Case Digest | Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court