SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 150155 : September 1, 2004]

SPOUSES RAMON and FELICISIMA DIOSO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES TOMAS and LEONORA CARDEÑO, Respondents.

SEPARATE OPINION

TINGA, J.:

I concur with the conclusion reached by my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Callejo, insofar as it grants to herein petitioners the right of way through the respondents property.

I would hasten to add that even without the Pinanumpaang Salaysay petitioners right to demand a right of way from respondents clearly exists under the aegis of Article 652 of the Civil Code.It provides that whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition is surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity.

While petitioners are not the original vendees of the property, there is no rhyme nor reason not to apply the provision of Article 652 to benefit them.Had the property been directly sold to petitioners by the respondents, the latter would have been obliged to grant the right of way to the former without indemnity.Logic dictates that no different result should ensue just because the transmission of the property to the petitioners was delayed by the prior sale to their predecessor-in-interest.