Case Digest (G.R. No. 198594)
Facts:
Helen Calimoso, Marilyn P. Calimoso and Liby P. Calimoso v. Axel D. Roullo, G.R. No. 198594, January 25, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the owners of Lot 1454-B-25; respondent Axel D. Roullo is the owner of Lot 1462-C-1, who filed the underlying complaint for an easement of right-of-way (docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-23858) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Iloilo City.In his complaint the respondent alleged that his lot was landlocked — surrounded by other estates including petitioners' lot — and that the shortest and most convenient access to the nearest public road (Fajardo Subdivision Road) passed through the petitioners' property. The petitioners opposed the easement, asserting that establishing the easement would substantially damage two houses on their property and that alternatives existed, including a wooden bridge over Sipac Creek or routes through vacant lots.
On September 29, 2003, the RTC granted the complaint and ordered an easement "measuring 14 meters in length and 3 meters in width (42 square meters, more or less)" over petitioners' lot adjoining Sipac Creek, with an indemnity of Php1,500.00 per square meter. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision dated December 15, 2010 (authored by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon), affirmed the RTC, finding all requisites for a legal easement present and selecting the route through the petitioners' lot as the shortest and least prejudicial. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration by resolution dated August 23, 2011, noting that asserted matters not raised or proven at trial could not be considered on appeal.
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the Supreme Court, questioning (a) whether the requisites for a legal easement were satisfied, (b) whether the chosen locatio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent meet all the requisites for establishing a legal easement of right-of-way?
- Was the right-of-way ordered by the CA established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate?
- Were there other available routes for access that would make the easement through the petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)