GR 112331; (May, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112331 May 29, 1996
Anastacia Quimen, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Yolanda Q. Oliveros, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Anastacia Quimen and her siblings inherited and subdivided a property in Pandi, Bulacan. Anastacia’s lot (Lot No. 1448-B-1) abutted a municipal road. Respondent Yolanda Oliveros purchased from her uncle, through Anastacia as administratrix, an interior lot (Lot No. 1448-B-6-A) located directly behind Anastacia’s property. Yolanda alleged Anastacia assured her a right of way through Anastacia’s adjoining lot for a price, which assurance was later reneged upon, barring her passage.
Yolanda later purchased another interior lot (Lot No. 1448-B-6-B) behind her parents’ property. Her parents provided a pathway, but it was obstructed by a sari-sari store, making adequate ingress and egress to the municipal road difficult. Yolanda filed an action for a compulsory right of way through Anastacia’s property. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the existing pathway through her parents’ property, if cleared, was the shortest and least prejudicial route.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Yolanda a compulsory right of way through Anastacia’s property.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the grant of the right of way. The legal requisites for a compulsory easement under Article 649 of the Civil Code were satisfied: Yolanda’s lot was isolated without adequate outlet to a public highway; the right of way was necessary for its use; and the isolation was not due to Yolanda’s own acts. The Court emphasized that in selecting the location for the easement, the rule is that the way where the least damage is caused to the servient estate prevails, even if it is not the shortest distance.
The proposed one-meter wide, five-meter long passage at the edge of Anastacia’s property, though involving a detour to avoid the store, was correctly deemed to cause the least prejudice. It required only the removal of an avocado tree, as opposed to the alternative of demolishing a substantial part of a permanent store structure on the other route. The principle of “least prejudice” overrides the criterion of “shortest distance.” The Court found no reason to disturb the appellate court’s factual findings, which were supported by the evidence and correct application of law.