Quimen v. CA

G.R. No. 112331 (May 29, 1996)

Facts:

Petitioner Anastacia Quimen, along with her siblings, inherited a property in Pandi, Bulacan, which they agreed to subdivide. Anastacia's share, designated as Lot No. 1448-B-1, was located at the extreme left and abutted a municipal road. Her brother Antonio's property, Lot No. 1448-B-C, was situated directly behind Anastacia's lot and was later divided into two smaller lots, 1448-B-6-A and 1448-B-6-B. In February 1982, respondent Yolanda Q. Oliveros purchased Lot No. 1448-B-6-A from Antonio through Anastacia, who acted as his administratrix. Yolanda was initially hesitant to buy the lot due to its lack of access to a public road, but Anastacia assured her that a right of way would be provided through her adjoining property.

After constructing a house on her lot, Yolanda attempted to pay Anastacia for the use of the pathway but was refused and subsequently barred from passing through Anastacia's property. In February 1986, Yolanda purchased Lot No. 1448-B-6-B, which was also isolated and had inadequate access to the municipal road due to a store owned by her father blocking the path. On December 29, 1987, Yolanda filed a complaint seeking a right of way through Anastacia's property.

An ocular inspection was conducted, revealing that Yolanda's proposed right of way would start from the back of her father's store, extend one meter into Anastacia's property, and then turn left for five meters to reach the municipal road. The trial court dismissed Yolanda's complaint, stating that the existing pathway through her father's property was the shortest route to the public road. Yolanda appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, granting Yolanda a right of way through Anastacia's property, concluding that it would cause the least damage to the servient estate. Anastacia then filed a petition for review, arguing that the appellate court erred in its decision.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the agreement between Anastacia and Yolanda regarding the right of way was valid and enforceable.
2. Whether Anastacia's property should be considered a servient estate despite not directly abutting Yolanda's property.
3. Whether the proposed right of way was indeed the least prejudicial and shortest route to the public road.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Anastacia Quimen):

  • Argued that the agreement to provide a right of way was not valid and that she had not promised Yolanda a right of way through her property.
  • Contended that the right of way through her property was not necessary since Yolanda could access the public road through her father's property.
  • Claimed that the proposed right of way would cause her significant damage, particularly due to the potential loss of income from her avocado tree.

• Respondent (Yolanda Q. Oliveros):

  • Asserted that Anastacia had indeed promised her a right of way, which induced her to purchase the property.
  • Argued that her property was isolated and that the proposed right of way through Anastacia's property was the least prejudicial option available.
  • Maintained that the existing pathway through her father's property was inadequate and obstructed.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming Yolanda's right to a right of way through Anastacia's property. The Court reasoned that the agreement between the parties had effectively created a legal easement by necessity, as Yolanda's property was surrounded by other properties without adequate access to a public road.

The Court emphasized that the criteria for establishing a right of way include the necessity of access, the willingness to pay indemnity, and the requirement that the right of way be at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The Court found that the proposed right of way would only require the removal of an avocado tree, while the alternative would necessitate demolishing a store made of strong materials, thus causing greater damage.

The Court reiterated the principle that the criterion of least prejudice must prevail over the shortest distance when determining the location of a right of way. The findings of the Court of Appeals were deemed supported by the evidence, and the trial court's dismissal of Yolanda's complaint was found to be erroneous.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. An easement of right of way can be established by necessity when a property is surrounded by other properties without adequate access to a public road.
2. The criteria for determining the location of a right of way prioritize the least prejudicial option over the shortest distance.
3. Agreements regarding easements can create legal rights that are enforceable, even if the parties later dispute the terms of the agreement.