ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 : ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 : LETICIA LIGON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 : FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN vs. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 : CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. vs. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 : SIMEON FLORO vs. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 : SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 : ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 : MARIANO R. DE LUNA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 : PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 : LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO vs. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 : MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 : JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. vs. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 : MARIANO T. NASSER vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 : RAUL SESBREÑO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 : PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 : RODRIGO SANTOS vs. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 : BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 : PONCIANO LAYUG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 : JAMES YU, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 : BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 : CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 : PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 : PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 : DANILO F. GATCHALIAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 : PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 : EMETERIO GALLO vs. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 : NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY vs. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 : ROSALIND M. APAGA vs. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 : RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. vs. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 : JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. vs. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 : SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 : JULIUS N. RABOCA vs. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 : PEDRO SAN JOSE vs. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 : DALMACIO CELINO vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 : LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 : ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 : LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA vs. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 : GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 : ALFONSO L. VELASCO vs. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 : BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 : ALLAN M. LOYOLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 : AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 : JOY L. BOMBASE vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 - ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 - LETICIA LIGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 - FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN v. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 - CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. v. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 - SIMEON FLORO v. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 - ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 - MARIANO R. DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 - PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 - MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 - JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 - RAUL SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 - RODRIGO SANTOS v. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 - BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 - PONCIANO LAYUG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 - JAMES YU, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 - BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 - CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 - PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 - DANILO F. GATCHALIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 - PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 - EMETERIO GALLO v. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 - NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY v. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 - ROSALIND M. APAGA v. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 - RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 - JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. v. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 - SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 - PEDRO SAN JOSE v. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 - DALMACIO CELINO v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 - LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 - ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 - LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA v. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 - GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 - ALFONSO L. VELASCO v. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 - BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 - ALLAN M. LOYOLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 - JOY L. BOMBASE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 106082   June 27, 1995 - LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 106082. June 27, 1995.]

    LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR and NESTOR BALTAZAR, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and DANIEL PANGANIBAN, Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY; REQUISITES FOR CLAIMING THEREOF. — In Locsin v. Climaco, (26 SCRA 836) this Court said: "By express provision of Article 649 and 650 of the New Civil Code, the owner of an estate may claim a compulsory right of way only after he has established the existence of four (4) requisites, namely, (1) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) after payment of the proper indemnity; (3) the isolation was not due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (4) the right way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and in so far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — It is not disputed that the first requisite has been established by the court a quo in its Order dated May 22, 1990. Respondent Panganiban’s property is indeed surrounded by immovables on three sides and a river on the fourth. As for the second requisite, Francisco v. Intermediate Appellate Court (177 SCRA 536) states: "There would indeed be some point in looking askance at a reading of the law which would impute to it a strict requirement to pay ‘proper indemnity’ in advance of a suit the purpose of which, in addition to creating an easement, is precisely to fix the amount of the indemnity to be paid therefor." We agree with the Court of Appeals when it ordered the remand of this case to the lower court for the purpose of fixing the proper indemnity. With respect to the third requisite, respondent Panganiban was likewise able to establish that the isolation of his property was due to his own act for he merely bought Lot 1027, which was formerly part of the Baltazars’ Lot 1026-A, from petitioner Nestor Baltazar’s predecessors-in-interest. The Court of Appeals found that Lot 1026-B which the respondent have been using as a right of way, has been "existing, recognized, acknowledged, tolerated and used by the appellant as a right of way for thirty (30) years during the lifetime of petitioner’s grandfather, Fidel and his father, Onisimo Baltazar." It was also established that the right of way was "closed and obstructed by the petitioners when they closed the gate and placed plants across the gate of Lot 1026-B when petitioners constructed their present residence." As regards the fourth requirement, both parties agreed that the passage claimed by respondent as his right of way, compared to the other passageways, is the shortest distance from respondent’s lot to Braulio Street. Petitioners could not have been inconvenienced by the passageway for, as borne out by the records, the same is separate and distinct from the gate used by them to enter their lot and residence. Such being the case, we conclude that respondent is entitled to claim a compulsory easement of right of way over petitioners’ Lot 1026-B.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, of Malolos and ordered petitioners to grant the right of way claimed by private Respondent.

    The instant petition for review on certiorari presents two issues for resolution, namely: (1) whether or not an easement of right of way can be granted to a person who has two other existing passageways adjacent to his property which he is using in going to and from his property; and, (2) whether or not an easement of right of way can be established through the alleged continuous use thereof in light of the doctrine laid down by this Court in the case of Ronquillo V. Roco 1 which held that an easement of right of way is discontinuous in nature since the dominant estate cannot be continually crossing the servient estate but can do so only at intervals.

    Daniel Panganiban is the owner of a parcel of residential land consisting of 117 square meters denominated as Lot no. 1027 located at Sta. Ines, Bulacan. Immediately to the front of said land is Lot 1026 of Loreto Vda. de Baltazar and her son Nestor Baltazar. Immediately behind is the Sta. Ana River. On either side are Lots 1025 and 1028 owned by Ricardo Calimon and Jose Legaspi, respectively. Braulio Street, a provincial road, runs along the frontage of Lots. 1025, 1026 and 1028.

    Sometime in 1989, Daniel Panganiban filed a complaint against the Baltazars who are owners of Lot 1026 for the establishment of a permanent and perpetual easement of right of way for him to have access to the provincial road. In said complaint, he prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

    In their answer, petitioners opposed the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction arguing that there exists two other rights of way adjacent to private respondent’s property. They likewise argue that private respondent had abandoned that alleged right of way.

    The court a quo, after conducting an ocular inspection and hearing for the issuance of the writ prayed for, dismissed the complaint based on the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Immediately in front of the plaintiff’s aforedescribed property is Residential Lot 1026 with an area of 119 square meters belonging to herein defendants. On this lot is constructed the residential house of the defendants, immediately in front of which is the provincial road. Running along one side of this property is a 1.20-meter wide, 10.40 meter long passageway which the plaintiff claims to have previously made use of as an ingress to and egress from his property in going to of coming from the provincial road, until some three (3) years before he instituted the instant action when the defendants somehow prevented him from using the same:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It is significant to note that, aside from the passageway which the plaintiff seeks to be established as a permanent easement, the property of the plaintiff is accessible to and from the provincial road via two (2) other passageways, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1) a passageway running immediately alongside the concrete fence of the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, over the properties of Loreto Bernardo and Jose Legaspi. This passageway ends in a gate which serves as a point of entry into or exit from the property of the plaintiff; and

    2) a passageway similarly running alongside the opposite concrete fence of the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, over the properties of Encarnacion Calimon and Ricardo Calimon. This passageway, which ends in a gate leading into the plaintiff’s property, is the right of way presently availed of by the plaintiff."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Daniel Panganiban appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming that the court a quo erred in dismissing the complaint for reasons of pragmatic considerations and in flagrant and clear violation of Article 649 and 650 of the new Civil Code of the Philippines.

    The Court of Appeals, in its assailed decision, 2 reversed the order of dismissal of the court a quo and granted respondent’s right of way. The dispositive portion of said decision states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In review of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendants-appellees are hereby ordered to grant the right of way of plaintiff-appellant, designated as Lot 1026-B, after payment of the proper indemnity, to be determined after hearing in the Court below.

    WHEREFORE, the case is hereby ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court of Appeals found the following based on the evidence on record:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1) Plaintiff-appellant’s Lot 1027 (Exh. D) is bounded on the south by Lot 1026-A, owned by defendants-appellants; on the north by Sta. Ana River; on the east, by Lot 1025 (Legaspi’s property); on the west, by Lot 1028 (Calimon’s property) [Exh. 3-T.D. No. 10998];

    2) The only accessible road from Lot 1027 is Braulio Street. This road runs across the frontage of Lot 1025, Lot 1026-A and Lot 1028;

    3) The shortest, direct and convenient way to gain access as an egress and ingress to said Braulio Street from the appellant’s dominant Lot 1027 is to pass through the appellees’ servient estate Lot 1026-A (Exh. 4-G, A, B, B-1, and C);

    4) That Lot 1026-B (Exh. 4-1) which is strip of land and a portion of appellees’ Lot 1026-A, with steel gates (Exhs. I-1 and F-2), has been existing, recognized, acknowledged, tolerated and used by the appellant as a right of way for thirty (30) years during the lifetime of appellees’ grandfather, Fidel, and his father, Onisimo Baltazar;

    5) That it was closed and obstructed by the appellees when it closed the gate and placed plants across the gate of Lot 1026-B, when appellees constructed their present residence;

    6) That appellant was compelled to request for a temporary pathway on the eastern side, Lot 1025, and when it was closed, on the western side, Lot 1028, of his Lot 1027."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is worth that there is a discrepancy in the findings between the court a quo and the Court of Appeals regarding the existence of two passageways from respondent Panganiban’s property to Braulio Street. The court a quo ruled that while the passageway through petitioner Baltazar’s property is the least prejudicial to the servient estate and the shortest distance between respondent Panganiban’s property and the provincial road, the claimed easement cannot be granted due to the strained relations between the parties. 3 The court a quo added that if the other two passageways will no longer be available to respondent, then the claimed easement of right of way over petitioner’s property would be granted. 4 It appears that the two passageways are simultaneously existing as alternative pathways for respondent Panganiban.

    The Court of Appeals, however, found that the two passageways mentioned were mere temporary pathways which respondent Panganiban requested successively from his two neighbors Calimon and Legaspi when petitioner Baltazar closed the passageway through his property. When the path on the eastern side (Lot 1025) was closed to the respondent, he was granted the use of the other on the western side (Lot 1028). 5

    The finding of the Court of Appeals that existing of the two passageways was not simultaneous and was granted by respondent’s neighbor, Calimon and Legaspi only upon respondent’s request when petitioner Baltazar closed the claimed passageway is supported by the evidence on record. 6

    In light of the above findings of the Court of Appeals, the underlying issue begging resolution is whether or not respondent Panganiban is entitled to claim an easement of right of way over the Baltazar’s property.

    In Locsin v. Climaco, 7 this Court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "By express provision of Article 649 and 650 of the New Civil Code, the owner of an estate may claim a compulsory right of way only after he has established the existence of four (4) requisites, namely, (1) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) after payment of the proper indemnity; (3) the isolation was not due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (4) the right way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and in so far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest."cralaw virtua1aw library

    For respondent Panganiban to claim a compulsory easement of right of way, he must, therefore, first establish the existence of the four requisites stated above.

    It is not disputed that the first requisite has been established by the court a quo in its Order dated May 22, 1990. 8 Respondent Panganiban’s property is indeed surrounded by immovables on three sides and a river on the fourth.

    As for the second requisite, Francisco v. Intermediate Appellate Court 9 states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "There would indeed be some point in looking askance at a reading of the law which would impute to it a strict requirement to pay ‘proper indemnity’ in advance of a suit the purpose of which, in addition to creating an easement, is precisely to fix the amount of the indemnity to be paid therefor."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We agree with the Court of Appeals when it ordered the remand of this case to the lower court for the purpose of fixing the proper indemnity. 10

    With respect to the third requisite, respondent Panganiban was likewise able to establish that the isolation of his property was due to his own act for he merely bought Lot 1027, which was formerly part of the Baltazars’ Lot 1026-A, 11 from petitioner Nestor Baltazar’s predecessors-in-interest. The Court of Appeals found that Lot 1026-B 12 which the respondent have been using as a right of way, has been "existing, recognized, acknowledged, tolerated and used by the appellant as a right of way for thirty (30) years during the lifetime of petitioner’s grandfather, Fidel and his father, Onisimo Baltazar." 13 It was also established that the right of way was "closed and obstructed by the petitioners when they closed the gate 14 and placed plants across the gate of Lot 1026-B when petitioners constructed their present residence." 15

    As regards the fourth requirement, both parties agreed that the passage claimed by respondent as his right of way, compared to the other passageways, is the shortest distance from respondent’s lot to Braulio Street. 16

    Petitioners could not have been inconvenienced by the passageway for, as borne out by the records, the same is separate and distinct from the gate used by them to enter their lot and residence. Such being the case, we conclude that respondent is entitled to claim a compulsory easement of right of way over petitioners’ Lot 1026-B.

    WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Feliciano, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. 103 Phil. 84.

    2. Penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo Pronove, Jr. and Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 32-37

    3. Rollo, pp. 62-63.

    4. Rollo, p. 63.

    5. Rollo, p. 34.

    6. Rollo, pp. 11-15, 74-76, 158.

    7. 26 SCRA 836, citing Angela Estate, Inc., Et. Al. v. Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, Et Al., 24 SCRA 500; Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., and Hon. Jose Fernandez v. Capitol Subd., and Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 731.

    8. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

    9. 177 SCRA 536.

    10. Rollo, p. 36.

    11. Rollo, pp. 155-156.

    12. Exh. 4-10

    13. Rollo, p. 34

    14. Exhs. F-1 and F-2.

    15. Rollo, p. 34.

    16. Rollo, p. 162, Exhs. 4-G, A, B, B-1 and C.

    G.R. No. 106082   June 27, 1995 - LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED