Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    CASE #13 Quimen V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Arbie Reyes
    This case involves a dispute over an easement of right of way between neighboring property owners. [1] The petitioner had previously agreed to provide a right of way through her property to allow the private respondent to access the main road, but later refused. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled that the private respondent was entitled to a right of way through the petitioner's property, as this route would cause the least damage to the petitioner's land. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that establishing the easement where it would cause the least prejudice to the servient estate, as required by law, was more important than taking the shortest route.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE #13 Quimen V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Arbie Reyes
    85 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over an easement of right of way between neighboring property owners. [1] The petitioner had previously agreed to provide a right of way through her property to allow the private respondent to access the main road, but later refused. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled that the private respondent was entitled to a right of way through the petitioner's property, as this route would cause the least damage to the petitioner's land. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that establishing the easement where it would cause the least prejudice to the servient estate, as required by law, was more important than taking the shortest route.

    Original Title

    EASEMENT-CASE-13-QUIMEN-v.-CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over an easement of right of way between neighboring property owners. [1] The petitioner had previously agreed to provide a right of way through her property to allow the private respondent to access the main road, but later refused. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled that the private respondent was entitled to a right of way through the petitioner's property, as this route would cause the least damage to the petitioner's land. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that establishing the easement where it would cause the least prejudice to the servient estate, as required by law, was more important than taking the shortest route.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views2 pages

    CASE #13 Quimen V. Ca

    Uploaded by

    Arbie Reyes
    This case involves a dispute over an easement of right of way between neighboring property owners. [1] The petitioner had previously agreed to provide a right of way through her property to allow the private respondent to access the main road, but later refused. [2] The Court of Appeals ruled that the private respondent was entitled to a right of way through the petitioner's property, as this route would cause the least damage to the petitioner's land. [3] The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding that establishing the easement where it would cause the least prejudice to the servient estate, as required by law, was more important than taking the shortest route.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CASE #13 QUIMEN v.

    CA
    G.R. No. 112331, May 29., 1996

    “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. However, as elsewhere
    stated, if these two (2) 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.”

    FACTS:

    1. Petitioner Anastacia Quimen together with her brothers Sotero, Sulpicio, Antonio and sister Rufina
    inherited a piece of property situated in Pandi, Bulacan which was later subdivided equally among
    themselveswith the shares of Anastacia, Sotero, Sulpicio and Rufina abutting the municipal road;
    2. In February 1982 Yolanda purchased Lot No. 1448-B-6-A from her uncle Antonio through her aunt
    Anastacia who was then acting as his administratrix;
    3. According to Yolanda, when petitioner offered her the property for sale she was hesitant to buy as it
    had no access to a public road. But Anastacia prevailed upon her to buy the lot with the assurance that
    she would give her a right of way on her adjoining property for P200.00 per square meter;
    4. When Yolanda finally offered to pay for the use of the pathway Anastacia refused to accept the
    payment. In fact she was thereafter barred by Anastacia from passing through her property;
    5. In February 1986 Yolanda purchased the other lot of Antonio Quimen, Lot No. 1448-B-6-B, located
    directly behind the property of her parents who provided her a pathway gratis et amore between their
    house, extending about nineteen (19) meters from the lot of Yolanda behind the sari sari store of
    Sotero, and Anastacia's perimeter fence. The store is made of strong materials and occupies the entire
    frontage of the lot measuring four (4) meters wide and nine meters (9) long. Although the pathway
    leads to the municipal road it is not adequate for ingress and egress. The municipal road cannot be
    reached with facility because the store itself obstructs the path so that one has to pass through the
    back entrance and the facade of the store to reach the road.
    6. On 29 December 1987 Yolanda filed an action with the proper court praying for a right of way through
    Anastacia's property. An ocular inspection upon instruction of the presiding judge was conducted by
    the branch clerk of court. The report was that the proposed right of way was at the extreme right of
    Anastacia's property facing the public highway, starting from the back of Sotero's sari sari store and
    extending inward by one (1) meter to her property and turning left for about five (5) meters to avoid
    the store of Sotero in order to reach the municipal road 3 and the way was unobstructed except for an
    avocado tree standing in the middle;
    7. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, explaining that the right of way
    through Sotero's property was a straight path and to allow a detour by cutting through Anastacia's
    property would no longer make the path straight. Hence the trial court concluded that it was more
    practical to extend the existing pathway to the public road by removing that portion of the store
    blocking the path as that was the shortest route to the public road and the least prejudicial to the
    parties concerned than passing through Anastacia's property;
    8. On appeal by respondent Yolanda, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and held that she
    was entitled to a right of way on petitioner's property and that the way proposed by Yolanda would
    cause the least damage and detriment to the servient estate. The appellate court however did not
    award damages to private respondent as petitioner did not act in bad faith in resisting the claim.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not CA erred in disregarding the agreement of the parties; considering the petitioner’s property as
    a servient estate despite the fact that it does not abut or adjoin the property of private respondent; and in
    holding that the one-meter by five-meter passage way proposed by private respondent is the least prejudicial
    and shortest distance to the public road.

    RULING:

    The voluntary easement in favor of private respondent, which petitioner now denies but which the court is
    inclined to believe, has in fact become a legal easement or an easement by necessity constituted by law.

    Article 650 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that the easement of right of way shall be established 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. The criterion of least prejudice to the servient
    estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation.

    The Court finds the decision of respondent appellate court thoroughly backed up by law and the evidence.
    Thus, no reversible error having been committed by respondent Court of Appeals, the petition is DENIED and
    the decision subject of review is AFFIRMED with costs against petitioner.

    You might also like