G.R. No. 172077 ; October 9, 2009
BICOL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE, INC. (BAPCI), Petitioner, vs. EDMUNDO O. OBIAS, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner BAPCI, which acquired the assets of BISUDECO, filed a complaint against respondents, landowners, after they barricaded a road constructed by BISUDECO in 1972 across respondents’ ricefields. Petitioner claimed an acquired right of way, either through a past agreement with the landowners or by prescription due to prolonged use, and sought to permanently restrain the obstructions. Respondents denied any agreement, asserting the road was built without their consent during Martial Law, and that they are agrarian reform beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27. As an alternative cause of action, petitioner later invoked Article 649 of the Civil Code to demand a compulsory easement of right of way.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found no evidence of an agreement or acquisitive prescription but granted petitioner a compulsory easement under Article 649, ordering payment of indemnity to the landowners. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint. The CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove the essential requisites for a compulsory easement, specifically that the claimed right of way was the shortest distance to a public highway and that the isolation of the estate was not due to petitioner’s own acts.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and ruling that petitioner is not entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is anchored on the strict requirements for imposing a compulsory easement under Article 649. For such an easement to be granted, the claimant must prove: (1) the estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3) the isolation is not due to the claimant’s own acts; and (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance to the highway is shortest.
The Court found that petitioner failed to satisfy the first and third requisites. Petitioner’s evidence did not conclusively establish that the road in question represented the shortest distance from its mill to a public highway. More critically, the isolation of petitioner’s property, necessitating the passage over respondents’ lands, was due to its own corporate predecessor’s act of constructing the sugar mill in its chosen location. One who deliberately places an establishment in a location without access cannot later demand a right of way through neighboring properties as a matter of right. The compulsory easement is intended to address an inherent or natural isolation, not one created by the dominant owner’s own voluntary design. Consequently, petitioner’s claim for a legal easement must fail.