G.R. No. L-48974 November 29, 1989
FRANCISCO MASCARINA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. EASTERN QUEZON COLLEGE, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are co-owners of Lot 26, bounded by the Gumaca River, a swamp, a provincial road, and Lots 23 and 27 owned by respondent Eastern Quezon College. The College’s buildings are situated on Lots 23 and 27. By mere tolerance, students used a path through Lot 26 to travel between these lots. After petitioners intermittently closed this path, the College filed a complaint for a legal easement of right of way over Lot 26, alleging it was necessary for student access.
In their Answer, petitioners (defendants below) contested the complaint, arguing the College was not entitled to an easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code because Lots 23 and 27 were not isolated without adequate outlet to a public highway. They asserted Lot 23 abutted a cemetery road and Lot 27 nearly abutted a new public road, making the easement sought merely for convenience between two college lots, not for access to a public highway. They also prayed for moral damages. Subsequently, they filed a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with Motion to Dismiss,” contending the complaint stated no cause of action and the issue was purely legal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment on the pleadings and granting the easement of right of way.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s decision. Judgment on the pleadings is proper only where no genuine issue of fact exists and the case can be resolved purely on legal questions. Here, the petitioners’ Answer specifically raised factual controversies by denying the College’s entitlement to the easement under Article 649, arguing its lots had existing access to public roads and the claimed path was for mere convenience, not necessity. These assertions created material factual issues requiring a full trial, such as the true isolation of the dominant estate and the adequacy of existing outlets.
The trial court’s summary grant of the easement based solely on the pleadings was erroneous. The legal requirements for imposing an easement—isolation of the dominant estate, payment of proper indemnity, and the least prejudice to the servient estate—are fact-intensive and necessitate the presentation of evidence, potentially including an ocular inspection. The court could not arbitrarily fix compensation for the land and damages without a hearing. Furthermore, procedural lapses regarding the substitution of a deceased party underscored the need for proper proceedings to protect all co-owners’ rights. The case was remanded for trial to properly determine the factual and legal bases for the claimed easement.