G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997
PACITA DAVID-CHAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacita David-Chan owned a lot in San Fernando, Pampanga, which was nearly surrounded by other properties. Her property was allegedly cut off from the MacArthur Highway, with her only access being a narrow, two-foot-four-inch opening through an adjacent 161-square-meter lot owned by respondent Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. She filed a petition seeking to establish a compulsory easement of right of way over that lot, alleging it was her sole outlet to the highway. She also sought to enjoin the respondent from fencing the property, which would block this access, and prayed for the sale of the lot to her.
The respondent denied the allegations, asserting the petitioner had other access points to the highway and that her occupancy on the subject lot was illegal, as established in a prior ejectment case. The former owners of the lot, Singian Brothers, were also impleaded and supported the respondent’s position, stating the right of way was not apparent or continuous and thus could not be acquired by prescription, and that the petitioner was not a tenant entitled to rights of pre-emption.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compulsory legal easement of right of way over a portion of the respondent’s property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on the statutory requirements for a compulsory easement under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code. For such an easement to be granted, the claimant must prove: (1) the property is isolated and lacks adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) the right of way is necessary for the use of the dominant estate; (3) payment of proper indemnity; and (4) the easement is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient factual support to prove the first requisite—that her property was indeed isolated. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, concluded she had another viable access, which she herself had obstructed. These factual findings are binding on the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts. The Court emphasized that equity cannot be invoked to contravene statutory law; it may only supplement the law in its absence. Since the petitioner did not legally qualify for the easement, her plea for equity based on “pakikisama” (sense of togetherness) was unavailing. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.