Zerc is the owner of a parcel of land known as the dominant estate. Immediately behind the dominant estate is a swampy mangrove area owned by the RP. On both sides were a lot owned by WP Inc. and another lot owned by Lui. In front was another lot owned by Spouses Wil, where the national highway ran along.
Zerc demanded an easement of right of way against Spouses Wil. He claimed that he was without adequate outlet to a public highway, that it could not be accessed except by passing through the spouses’ property; that the isolation of Zerc’s property was not due to his own acts, as it was the natural consequence of its location; and that the right of way he was claiming was at a point least prejudicial to Spouses Wil’s property.
Zerc wrote to the spouses formally asking them to provide him with right of way for which he was willing to pay reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property. The spouses refused.
The spouses countered that Zerc failed to establish the requisites for the existence of right of way. They claimed that they were in negotiation with Sierra, the former owner of the dominant estate, when Zerc intervened in the sale.
Moreover, the grant of an easement of a right of way would cause great damages and prejudice to them as they already undertook visible development projects on their property.
Q: What are the requirements that must be complied with before one can be entitled to the easement of right of way?
A: The following are the requirements that must be complied with for one to be entitled to the easement of right of way:
The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway;
There is payment of proper indemnity;
The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and
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 from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
Q: Are the requisites present in the case at bar?
A: Yes. As regards the first requisite, there is no dispute that the respondent’s property was surrounded by other immovables owned by different individuals, including that of the spouses. The isolation was further shown in a Sketch Plan prepared by the geodetic engineer deputized by the parties.
Moreover, contrary to the spouses’ claim that was no existing barangay road.
The second requisite of payment of indemnity was also complied with by the respondent when he wrote the spouses formally asking them to provide him with a right of way, for which he was willing to pay a reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property.
The third requisite, the isolation of the dominant estate was not due to the Zerc’s own acts. The property he purchased was already surrounded by other immovables leaving him no adequate ingress or egress to a public highway.
The spouses refused to grant a right of way and averred that the isolation of the dominant estate was attributable to the respondent’s own acts.
They pointed out that when the Zerc purchased the dominant estate, he knew that Sierra was in negotiation with them for the sale of the dominant estate, thus, he was in bad faith.
Nonetheless, it cannot be used to defeat Zerc’s claim for a right of way. Sierra had every right to sell his property to anybody. Further, when Zerc bought the dominant estate there could have been no existing contract of sale yet considering that the spouses and Sierra were still in negotiation.
As to the fourth requisite, the right of way being sought by Zerc is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and it is the shortest distance to the national highway. This is evident in the Sketch Plan showing that the requested right of way was alongside the perimeter of the spouses’ property.
Q: Will it matter if the right of way is not the shortest distance from dominant estate?
A: Even assuming that the right of way being claimed by the respondent is not the shortest distance from the dominant estate to the public highway, it is well-settled that “[t]he criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation. xxx In other words, where the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. If having these two circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.”
(Source: Spouses Williams vs. Zerda, G.R. No. 207146, March 15, 2017)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean, College of Law, Lyceum of the Philippine University; Chairperson of Philippine Association of Law Schools; and founder of Mawis Law Office