G.R. No. 191710 , January 14, 2015
DEMETRIA DE GUZMAN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS OLGA C. BARBASO AND NOLI G. CEMENTTNA; LOLITA A. DE GUZMAN; ESTHER G. MILAN; BANAAG A. DE GUZMAN; AMOR G. APOLO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS ALBERTO T. APOLO, MARK APOLO AND GEORGE APOLO; HERMINIO A. DE GUZMAN; LEONOR G. VIVENCIO; NORMA A. DE GUZMAN; AND JOSEFINA G. HERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. FBLINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land in Cainta, Rizal, which is enclosed and surrounded by other properties. One adjoining property is the Filinvest Home Subdivision Phase IV-A, owned by respondent, which has direct access to Marcos Highway. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Easement of Right of Way against respondent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the right of way, finding the alternative route proposed by respondent (through other properties to Sumulong Highway) to be unfeasible as it was hilly, traversed raw lands owned by different persons, and not passable by vehicles. The RTC fixed the indemnity at P400,000. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the grant of easement but remanded the case to the RTC for determination of the exact area and corresponding indemnity, as the P400,000 amount lacked basis. On remand, the parties disagreed on the extent of the right of way. Petitioners insisted it pertained only to “Road Lot 15,” where a fence separating their property from the subdivision needed removal. Respondent contended it should cover the entire stretch from petitioners’ property to the subdivision gate leading to Marcos Highway, encompassing Road Lots 3, 10, 6, 4, 2, and 1 (approximately 2,350 meters). The RTC ruled the right of way pertained only to Road Lot 15 (264 sqm), with indemnity at P1,620/sq.m. The CA reversed, holding the right of way should cover the entire 2,350-meter stretch (23,500 sqm at 10m width) to Marcos Highway, with indemnity for the value of this entire area.

ISSUE

What is the proper extent of the easement of right of way granted to petitioners and the corresponding indemnity to be paid to respondent?

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC’s Order. The extent of the easement is only over Road Lot 15. The indemnity shall be the value of the land occupied (264 sqm of Road Lot 15 at P1,620/sq.m.) and the amount of damage caused to the servient estate, limited to the wear and tear of Road Lot 15. The Court held that the RTC’s 1993 Decision, which became final after CA affirmation, specifically identified the point of entry for the easement as Road Lot 15, requiring only the removal of a fence. This specific designation constituted the law of the case and could not be altered. The CA erred in expanding the easement to cover the entire internal road network of the subdivision. The right of way granted is a simple passage, not a corridor of land. Petitioners are merely granted the right to pass over the existing subdivision roads to reach the highway; they do not acquire ownership over the entire stretch. Therefore, indemnity is due only for the area actually occupied (the point of entry, Road Lot 15) and for damages (wear and tear) caused by the use of the passage. They are not liable for the value of the entire 23,500 sqm of road lots traversed.