G.R. No. 110067 March 13, 1997
MA. LINDA T. ALMENDRAS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, URCICIO TAN PANG ENG and FABIANA YAP, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Linda T. Almendras is the registered owner of a lot in Banilad, Cebu, bounded by properties of private respondents Tan Pang Eng and Fabiana Yap (north and east), Celedonio Bongo (south), and Tomas and Zosimo Opone (west). Approximately 9.74 meters of the western boundary abutted an existing 6-meter-wide private road passing through several Opone family lots and connecting to another private road on Bienvenido Tudtud’s property, which ultimately led to a provincial road. In 1987, private respondents began constructing a concrete wall on their property bordering petitioner’s lot. Petitioner offered to buy a strip of land from them for access, but her request was denied. Subsequently, Celedonio Bongo fenced his southern boundary, and later, Zosimo Opone closed off the western side, rendering petitioner’s property completely inaccessible.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is entitled to a compulsory right of way through private respondents’ property under Article 649 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that petitioner failed to establish a right to a compulsory easement through private respondents’ land. For a compulsory right of way under Article 649, the claimant must prove: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and lacks adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) the easement is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (3) proper indemnity is paid. Here, an existing private road (the Opone road) abutted petitioner’s western boundary and connected to the provincial road via the Tudtud road. This road, though private, was passable and provided an adequate outlet. The closure by Zosimo Opone did not automatically justify imposing an easement on a different estate (respondents’) without first exhausting the legal remedy against Opone. Moreover, Article 650 requires the easement to be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The trial court’s grant of an easement through respondents’ property was premature, as the owners of other potentially less prejudicial servient estates (the Opone and Tudtud properties) were not parties to the suit and could not present evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the decisions of both lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing private respondents to file a third-party complaint against other estate owners to properly determine the least prejudicial route.