G.R. No. L-8654; March 30, 1914
EUGENIO RESOLME, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ROMAN LAZO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs-appellees claimed an ancient right of way across the land of the defendant-appellant, Roman Lazo. They alleged that Lazo obstructed this right of way by erecting fences, forcing them to use an alternative path that was less convenient. The trial court appointed a commissioner whose report confirmed the existence of the ancient right of way as claimed and found that Lazo had indeed fenced it off for his own convenience, compelling the plaintiffs to use a different, parallel path slightly to the north. The commissioner noted that while the new path was not significantly less convenient, the defendant’s motive was merely to move the road farther from his house. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering that the road “be opened for public use.”

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant, by providing an alternative path, can lawfully obstruct the plaintiffs’ ancient right of way.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs had a vested right to the ancient right of way. The Court held that the existence of an alternative path, even if nearly as convenient, does not justify the obstruction of a pre-existing easement. The issue was not about laying out a new road where convenience could be balanced, but about the defendant’s unlawful obstruction of an established right. Since the plaintiffs proved the existence of the ancient right of way, they were entitled to its use without obstruction.

However, the Supreme Court modified the form of relief granted. The trial court’s order implying a duty for the defendant to construct or maintain the road was erroneous. The defendant’s obligation was merely negative: to refrain from obstructing the right of way. Therefore, the proper relief was a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs’ passage over the ancient right of way as identified in the commissioner’s plan (marked by arrows No. 1).

The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for the issuance of a permanent injunction consistent with the ruling. No costs were awarded.