Case Digest | Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 158141, July 11, 2006
Facts:
Private respondent Far East Enterprises, Inc., owns Tali Beach Subdivision. Petitioner Fausto Preysler, Jr. and his wife owned lots therein and also two parcels of land adjacent to the subdivision. These two parcels were bounded on the North and West by the China Sea and on the East and South by the subdivision. To gain access to the two parcels petitioner has to pass through private respondent’s subdivision. Petitioner offered P10,000 for the easement of right of way but private respondent refused it for being grossly inadequate. Private respondent then barricaded the front gate of petitioner’s property to prevent petitioner and his family from using the subdivision roads to access said parcels.
The petitioner filed, with the Regional Trial Court a Complaint for Right of Way with prayer for preliminary prohibitive injunction against private respondent. After due hearing, the trial court, in an Order dated November 5, 1996, held that barricading the property to prevent the petitioner from entering it deprived him of his ownership rights and caused irreparable damage and injuries.
Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction was issued on December 12, 1996.
On July 8, 1998, petitioner used the subdivision road to transport heavy equipment and construction materials to develop his property. Consequently, private respondent moved to dissolve the writ claiming that the petitioner violated its right to peaceful possession and occupation of Tali Beach Subdivision when petitioner brought in heavy equipment and construction materials. Private respondent maintained that the damages that may be caused to it far outweigh the alleged damages sought to be prevented by the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in restricting or limiting a passage over the Tali Beach Subdivision roads to ingress and egress of petitioner and members of the latter’s household in violation of the law on legal easement of right of way.
Held:
Under Article 656 of the New Civil Code, if the right of way is indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or beautification of a building, a temporary easement is granted after payment of indemnity for the damage caused to the servient estate. In our view, however, “indispensable” in this instance is not to be construed literally. Great inconvenience is sufficient. In the present case, the trial court found that irrespective of which route petitioner used in gaining access to his property, he has to pass private respondent’s subdivision. Thus the Court agrees that petitioner may be granted a temporary easement. This temporary easement in the original writ differs from the permanent easement of right of way now being tried in the main case.
The law provides that temporary easement is allowed only after the payment of the proper indemnity. As there are neither sufficient allegations nor established facts in the record to help this Court determine the proper amount of indemnity, it is best to remand the case to the trial court for such determination.
Additionally, the Court finds the installation of electric power lines a permanent easement not covered by Article 656. Article 656 deals only with the temporary easement of passage. Neither casn installation of electric power lines be subject to a preliminary injunction for it is not part of the status quo. Besides, more damage would be done to both parties if the power lines are installed only to be removed later upon a contrary judgment of the court in the main case.
Related posts:
- Case Digest | Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Edgardo De Jesus, et al v. Court of Appeals and Primitiva Felipe De Jesus
- Case Digest | Titong v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Director, Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Jose De Luna v. Court of Appeals, Hon.Santiago Maliwanag, Juan Dimaano, Jr.,
- Case Digest | China Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Sps. Pingol v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | De Jesus v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
