Case Digest | Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals
Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals
195 SCRA 72
Facts:
Prior to 1960, when the servient estate was not yet enclosed with a concrete fence, persons going to the national highway just crossed the servient estate at no particular point. However, in 1960 when private respondents constructed a fence around the servient estate, a road path measuring 25 meters long and about a meter wide was constituted to provide access to the highway. One-half meter width of the path was taken from the servient estate and the other one-half meter portion was taken from another lot owned by Mamerto Magsino. No compensation was asked and non was given for the portions constituting the pathway.
Petitioner’s plant nursery business through sheer hard work flourished and with that, it became more and more difficult for petitioner to haul the plants and garden soil to and from the nursery and the highway with the use of pushcarts. In January, 1984, petitioner was able to buy an owner-type jeep which he could use for transporting his plants. However, that jeep could not pass through the road path and so he approached the servient estate owners (Aniceta Vda. de Sagun and Elena Romero Vda. de Sagun) and requested that they sell to him one and one-half (1 1/2) meters of their property to be added to the existing pathway so as to allow passage for his jeepney. To his utter consternation, his request was turned down by the two widows and further attempts at negotiation proved futile.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner entitled to additional right of way?
Held:
Petitioner Tomas Encarnacion is hereby declared entitled to an additional easement of right of way of twenty-five (25) meters long by one and one-half (1 1/2) meters wide over the servient estate or a total area of 62.5 square meters after payment of the proper indemnity.
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
Related posts:
- Case Digest | Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Vda. De Aviles v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Marcelo v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | De La Cruz v. Ramiscal
- Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Titong v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Sps. Pingol v. Court of Appeals
