G.R. No. 223429 - Soliva vs. Tanggol

Respondent Axel D. Roullo filed a complaint for easement of right-of-way over the property of petitioners Helen, Marilyn P., and Liby P. Calimoso.
Respondent is the registered owner of Lot 1462-C-1 in Brgy. Sambag, Jaro, Iloilo City, covered by TCT No. T-6788.
Petitioners own Lot 1454-B-25, covered by TCT No. T-61058, which surrounds the respondent’s lot and prevents direct access to a public road.

Respondent’s lot is isolated, having no access to any public road.
The shortest and most convenient access to the nearest public road—the Fajardo Subdivision Road—requires crossing the petitioners’ property.
Respondent prayed for the establishment of an easement of right-of-way measuring approximately 14 meters by 3 meters (42 square meters), located adjoining the bank of Sipac Creek on the petitioners' lot.

Petitioners opposed the easement, asserting that it would cause substantial damage to two houses standing on their property—a nipa hut and a concrete house.
They claimed alternative access routes for respondent, including:

Use of an existing wooden bridge over Sipac Creek, bordering the respondent’s property northeast, which could be converted into a concrete bridge to provide access to Fajardo Subdivision Road.
Potential access via two vacant lots located southwest of respondent’s lot, although farther from a public highway.

Petitioners also counterclaimed for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, appearance fees, and litigation expenses due to what they claimed was a malicious and groundless suit.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Iloilo City, in Civil Case No. CEB-23858, granted respondent’s complaint and ordered the establishment of the easement of right-of-way over petitioners’ lot, with compensation at Php1,500.00 per square meter.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in a December 15, 2010 decision, holding that all requisites for the establishment of a legal easement of right-of-way were present:

On reconsideration, the CA denied petitioners’ motion, ruling that their allegations of damage were not raised or proven before the RTC.

Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising the following issues:

Whether the requisites for legal easement of right-of-way were met.
Whether the location of the right-of-way was at the point least prejudicial to petitioners.
Whether alternative routes through other lots exist that would avoid prejudicing petitioners’ property.

Whether respondent met all requisites for the establishment of a legal or compulsory easement of right-of-way on the petitioners’ property.
Whether the establishment of the right-of-way over the petitioners’ lot was at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
Whether alternative right-of-way routes exist through other surrounding properties that would be less prejudicial or more appropriate.