G.R. No. L-63996 September 15, 1989
EUSEBIO FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and CRESENCIO J. RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS

Cresencio J. Ramos, owner of Lot 860-A, sought an easement of right of way through the adjoining Lot 266 owned by Eusebio Francisco. Ramos’s lot became isolated from the public road (Parada Road) after the subdivision of the original Lot 860, which was formerly co-owned. The subdivision allocated the entire road frontage to Lot 860-B, landlocking Ramos’s Lot 860-A and others. Ramos initially obtained a passageway through Lot 860-B in 1972 but later closed it by constructing a wall. He then demanded a right of way through Francisco’s Lot 266, which was refused. Francisco, upon learning of Ramos’s intent to sue, erected a stone wall along his property line.
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan granted Ramos a compulsory right of way through Francisco’s land, ordering Francisco to remove obstructions upon Ramos’s payment of indemnity. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed this decision. Francisco appealed, contending the lower courts erred in granting the easement.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly granted a compulsory right of way in favor of Ramos through Francisco’s property.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and dismissed Ramos’s complaint. The legal logic centers on the requirements for establishing a compulsory easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code. For such an easement to be validly imposed, the claimant must prove: (1) the property is isolated without 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, where the isolation is due to partition of an estate, the right of way should be established over the lands constituting the estate.
The Court found Ramos failed to satisfy the fourth requirement. The isolation of his Lot 860-A was a direct result of the subdivision and partition of the original co-owned Lot 860. Under Article 650 of the Civil Code, when an estate is partitioned, causing isolation, the right of way should be established over the lands belonging to the co-owners who participated in the partition, not over the land of a stranger. The proper servient estates were the other lots resulting from the partition of Lot 860, particularly Lot 860-B which held the frontage. Ramos’s act of closing the previously available passage through Lot 860-B was a deliberate act creating his own necessity, which cannot justify imposing a servitude on an adjacent owner like Francisco who was not a party to the partition. Therefore, Ramos had no legal right to demand an easement through Francisco’s property.