GR 125339; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125339 June 22, 1998
CRESENCIA CRISTOBAL, ROBERTO MAKIMKIM, DAMASO MAKIMKIM, SPOUSES SALVADOR HERMALINO and PONCIANA MAKIMKIM, MILAGROS MAKIMKIM, REMEDIOS MAKIMKIM, SPOUSES FRANCISCO ESTANISLAO and FLORDELIZA MAKIMKIM, ERLINDA MAKIMKIM, JOSE MAKIMKIM and GINA MAKIMKIM, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CESAR LEDESMA, INC., SPOUSES JESUS C. PACIONE and LERMA B. PACIONE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners own a house and lot at No. 10 Visayas Avenue Extension, Quezon City, where they have resided since 1961. Respondent Cesar Ledesma, Inc. owned a subdivision that included Road Lot 2, which petitioners used to access the nearest public road. In 1979, after Visayas Avenue became a national road, Cesar Ledesma, Inc. obtained court approval to convert Road Lot 2 into two residential lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2). These lots were sold to Macario Pacione, who then conveyed them to respondent spouses Jesus and Lerma Pacione. In 1987, the Pacione spouses discovered a squatter on Lot 1 and that petitioners were using a portion as a passageway to Visayas Avenue. After a failed barangay conciliation where petitioners offered to pay for the use of the passageway, the spouses began fencing Lot 1. Petitioners filed an action for easement of right of way, claiming their property was surrounded by other houses and had no adequate outlet to Visayas Avenue except through the Pacione property. The trial court ordered an ocular inspection. The report indicated an alternative route: from Visayas Avenue, via Ma. Elena St. (2.5m wide, 150m long), to a private road (100m long), then through an adjacent vacant lot to a gate at the side of petitioners’ lot. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners failed to prove the absence of an adequate outlet to a public highway. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint for easement of right of way, specifically: (1) in finding that petitioners failed to establish the absence of an adequate outlet to a public highway, and (2) in not addressing the alleged illegality of the conversion of the road lot into residential lots.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that petitioners’ argument was essentially factual, and under Rule 45, only questions of law may be reviewed. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are conclusive. The Court found no reversible error, as petitioners failed to prove the first essential requisite for a compulsory easement of right of way under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code: that the dominant estate has no adequate outlet to a public highway. The ocular inspection report established the existence of an alternative adequate outlet via Ma. Elena Street and a private road. The legal standard is “adequacy,” not “convenience.” Since an adequate outlet existed, the claim for a compulsory right of way was unjustified.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that the legality of the road lot conversion was a settled matter, having been declared final in LRC Case No. Q-1614. Furthermore, questions regarding non-compliance with conversion requisites under P.D. No. 957 fall under the primary jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority (now HLURB), not the regular courts.