Case Digest | De La Cruz v. Ramiscal
De La Cruz v. Ramiscal
450 SCRA 449
Facts:
In 1976, respondent leased her property, including the building thereon, to Phil. Orient Motors. Phil. Orient Motors also owned a property adjacent to that of respondents. In 1995, Phil. Orient Motors sold its property to San Benito Realty. After the sale, Engr. Rafael Madrid prepared a relocation survey and location plan for both contiguous properties of respondent and San Benito Realty. It was only then that respondent discovered that the aforementioned pathway being occupied by petitioners is part of her property.
Through her lawyer, respondent immediately demanded that petitioners demolish the structure constructed by them on said pathway without her knowledge and consent. As her letter dated 18 February 1995 addressed to petitioners went unheeded, the former referred the matter to the Barangay for conciliation proceedings, but the parties arrived at no settlement. Hence, respondent filed this complaint with the RTC in Civil Case No. Q-95-25159, seeking the demolition of the structure allegedly illegally constructed by petitioners on her property. Respondent asserted in her complaint that petitioners have an existing right of way to a public highway other than the current one they are using, which she owns. She prayed for the payment of damages.
On the other hand, petitioners, in their Answer, admitted having used a 1.10-meter wide by 12.60-meter long strip of land on the northern side of respondents property as their pathway to and from 18th Avenue, the nearest public highway from their property, but claimed that such use was with the knowledge of respondent.Petitioners alleged in their Answer that in 1976, respondent initiated the construction on her property of a motor shop known as Phil. Orient Motors and they, as well as the other occupants of the property at the back of respondents land, opposed the construction of the perimeter wall as it would enclose and
Issue:
Whether or not there is a right of way?
Held:
The Court ruled in the negative. Petitioners herein failed to show by competent evidence other than their bare claim that they and their tenants, spouses Manuel and Cecilia Bondoc and Carmelino Masangkay, entered into an agreement with respondent, through her foreman, Mang Puling, to use the pathway to 18th Avenue, which would be reciprocated with an equivalent 1.50-meter wide easement by the owner of another adjacent estate. The hands of this Court are tied from giving credence to petitioners self-serving claim that such right of way was voluntarily given them by respondent.
The conferment of a legal easement of right of way under Article 649 is subject to proof of the following requisites: (1) it is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3) the isolation is not the result of its own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to the extent consistent with the foregoing rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. The first three requisites are not obtaining in the instant case.
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Engreso v. De la Cruz
- Property Case Digest | Victoria Arambulo and Miguel Arambulo III v. Emerenciana Gungab
- Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Edgardo De Jesus, et al v. Court of Appeals and Primitiva Felipe De Jesus
- Property Case Digest | Spouses Elpidio Apostol and Amelia Apostol v. Court Of Appeals and Spouses Emmanuel Chua and Edna L. Chua
- Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | De Jesus v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Moreno – Lentfer v. Wolff
- Property Case Digest | Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Sps. Gulla v. Heirs of A. Labrador
