GR 157285; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157285 . February 16, 2007.
WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC., and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, Petitioners, vs. ARB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Woodridge School, Inc. and Miguela Jimenez-Javier own adjacent properties within the Soldiers Hills Subdivision in Bacoor, Cavite, developed by respondent ARB Construction Co., Inc. To access the public highway (Marcos Alvarez Avenue), petitioners used a road lot owned by ARB within the subdivision. When negotiations for indemnity failed, ARB fenced the road, cutting off petitioners’ access. Petitioners filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin ARB and to establish a compulsory right of way.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the road was automatically owned by the government upon approval of the subdivision plan, citing the White Plains doctrine, and thus ARB could not prevent its use. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the White Plains case inapplicable as the road here was not segregated for a specific public thoroughfare project. It recognized a compulsory right of way in favor of petitioners but ordered them to pay ARB ₱500,000 as reasonable indemnity for the use of the road lot.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding ₱500,000 as indemnity to ARB for the establishment of a compulsory easement of right of way.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the appellate court’s finding that a compulsory right of way existed under Article 649 of the Civil Code, as petitioners’ properties were isolated without an adequate outlet to the public highway except through ARB’s road. However, it annulled the ₱500,000 indemnity award. The Court held that indemnity for a legal easement is not determined by equitable considerations or the market value of the land used, but must be based on the proper legal standards under Article 649. This requires a factual determination of the damage to the servient estate (ARB’s property) and the benefit to the dominant estates (petitioners’ properties). The case was remanded to the trial court to receive evidence and properly determine: (1) the exact area to be covered by the easement, (2) the proportionate indemnity for the damage to ARB, and (3) the respective contributions of the two petitioners based on the benefit each derives. The award cannot be based on wear and tear or the cost of constructing the road, but strictly on the decrease in value of the servient estate caused by the encumbrance.