Facts:

The case revolves around the petitioners Helen Calimoso, Marilyn P. Calimoso, and Liby P. Calimoso versus the respondent Axel D. Roullo, concerning a dispute over an easement of right-of-way. The events leading up to the case began when the respondent filed a complaint for an easement of right-of-way on March 22, 2002, alleging that he is the owner of Lot 1462-C-1 located in Barangay Sambag, Jaro, Iloilo City. His lot is notably isolated from access to any public road due to neighboring estates, including Lot 1454-B-25 owned by the petitioners. The only feasible access to the nearest public road, the Fajardo Subdivision Road, is through the petitioners' property. The petitioners contested the establishment of the easement, claiming it would cause significant damage to their two existing houses. They pointed out that there were alternatives for the respondent, particularly a wooden bridge over Sipac Creek, which could provide access to the road if converted to a concrete stru

...

Facts:

Parties and Properties

• The respondent, Axel D. Roullo, is the owner of Lot 1462-C-1 located in Brgy. Sambag, Jaro, Iloilo City, which is isolated by surrounding estates.
• The petitioners, Helen Calimoso, Marilyn P. Calimoso, and Liby P. Calimoso, own Lot 1454-B-25, which adjoins the respondent’s property and is the subject of the easement claim.
• The property arrangements create a dominant estate (respondent’s lot) and a servient estate (petitioners’ lot).

Allegations and Complaint for Easement

• The respondent filed a complaint seeking the establishment of a compulsory easement of right-of-way through Lot 1454-B-25, arguing that his lot is isolated and lacks direct access to any public road.
• He claimed that the shortest and most convenient access to the Fajardo Subdivision Road, a public road, requires the passage through the petitioners’ property.
• The respondent offered compensation for the use of the petitioners’ lot as part of the easement arrangement.

Litigation History and Claims

• At the Regional Trial Court (RTC) level, the complaint was granted on September 29, 2003, and an easement of right-of-way—measuring approximately 14 meters in length and 3 meters in width—was ordered over a portion of the petitioners’ lot adjoining Sipac Creek.
• The RTC’s decision also provided that the respondent pay an indemnity of Php1,500.00 per square meter for the affected area.
• The petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), where the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in its December 15, 2010 decision.
• The petitioners then moved for reconsideration on the CA level, arguing that establishing the easement would severely damage their property (including a nipa hut and part of a concrete house), but the CA denied the motion on the ground that these issues had not been raised or proven at trial.

Alternative Routes and Specific Arguments

• The petitioners contended that the respondent had other potential routes to access a public road:
• Using a wooden bridge over Sipac Creek (which, if made concrete, could serve as an alternative access point).
• Traversing alternative vacant lots (specifically, two vacant lots southwest of the respondent’s property) that, although farther away, would avoid damaging petitioners’ existing structures.
• The CA ultimately adopted the shortest alternative (through the petitioners’ lot) because it provided the minimal distance to the Fajardo Subdivision Road, despite the noted potential damages.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

• Whether the respondent met all legal requisites for the establishment of a compulsory easement of right-of-way.
• Whether the chosen route through the petitioners’ property was indeed the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
• Whether an easement could be instead established through adjacent lots, thereby avoiding harm to the petitioners’ property.

Issue:

Compliance with Legal Requisites for an Easement of Right-of-Way

• Whether the respondent’s lot qualifies as the dominant estate by being surrounded by other immovables and lacking an adequate access to a public road.
• Whether the requisite payment of indemnity for the use of the petitioners’ land was properly addressed.

Establishment at the Point Least Prejudicial to the Servient Estate

• Determining if the route chosen through the petitioners’ property meets the statutory requirement of being at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
• Whether the potential damage to the petitioners’ property—specifically, the destruction of a nipa hut and part of a concrete house—outweighs the benefit of the shortest route option.

Availability of Alternative Routes

• Whether the respondent could establish a right-of-way through other adjacent properties (such as the two vacant lots or by modifying the access over Sipac Creek) that would prevent any damage to the petitioners’ property.
• The legal weight of convenience (shortest distance) versus the principle of causing the least prejudice to the servient estate.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)