G.R. No. 80511 - Costabella Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner, Costabella Corporation, owner of Lots Nos. 5122 and 5124 of the Opon Cadastre, situated at Sitio Buyong, Maribago, Lapu-Lapu City, upon which it constructed a resort and hotel.
Private respondents, owners of adjoining Lots Nos. 5123-A and 5123-C of the Opon Cadastre.

Prior to the petitioner’s construction, the private respondents used a passageway crossing the petitioner’s property to access the provincial road.
The original passageway was claimed to be an "ancient road right of way," used by the respondents, community, and general public since before World War II for pedestrian and vehicular access.

In 1981, the petitioner closed the original passageway to build its hotel, but opened an alternative route across its property for the respondents’ use.
In August 1982, during construction of the second phase, the petitioner fenced its property, closing even the alternative passageway and preventing the respondents from any access through its property.

Filed an action for injunction with damages against the petitioner on September 2, 1982, before the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
Complaint included:

Claim of an existing ancient road right of way depriving them of access once closed.
Allegation that petitioner constructed an unpermitted dike blocking residents and fishermen and accumulating debris.

Denied existence of ancient road through its property.
Claimed the respondents’ use was temporary, sporadic, and allowed only by tolerance as an act of neighborliness.
Justified fencing for security, privacy, and protection of hotel guests.
Asserted respondents had other adequate access to the public road through other properties.
Differentiated breakwater constructed from the alleged dike, stating it was beneficial to fishermen and community.
Argued that failure of respondents to include owners of other properties crossed by alleged ancient road made complaint defective for failure to implead indispensable parties.

Found that respondents acquired a vested right of passage over the disputed road by long existence and community use.
Ruled that petitioner violated respondents’ vested right by closing it.
Ordered petitioner:

To open and keep passageway accessible to respondents and the public unless petitioner provided an alternative road equally accessible and convenient.
To pay P5,000 monthly to Katipunan Lumber Company, Inc. starting January 1983, and P200 monthly to Perfecta Guangco starting September 1982 for expenses incurred due to road closure until reopening or alternate road availability.
To pay P15,000 attorney’s fees and costs.

Held the trial court erred in ruling that respondents acquired vested right by prescription since right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription per Article 622 of the Civil Code.
Exercising equity jurisdiction, treated the easement sought as a compulsory easement legally demandable by dominant estate owners from servient estate owners under Articles 649 & 650 of the Civil Code.
Ordered:

Granting respondents right to easement of right of way over petitioner’s property unless petitioner provides another equally accessible and convenient passage.
Remanded for trial court to determine just indemnity payable to petitioner for the easement.
Set aside trial court’s award of actual damages and attorney’s fees.

Denied petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration.
Stated that although there was another outlet for respondents, the old road was over 30 years old; legally could be closed, but since the other outlet was inconvenient, equity required granting respondents the possibility to pay for a more convenient outlet on petitioner’s land, subject to damages and regulation by petitioner.

Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals decision was erroneous and inconsistent with Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence.

Whether the private respondents acquired a right of easement of passage by prescription or otherwise over petitioner’s property.
Whether the right of way claimed can be considered a compulsory easement legally demandable by the respondents under Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code.
Whether the respondents established the requisites for compulsory easement, including absence of adequate outlet, proper indemnity, and isolation not due to their own acts.
Whether the closing of the older passageway without granting an equally convenient alternate access violates the rights of the respondents.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the compulsory right of way and denying dismissal of the complaint based on absence of valid easement.