G.R. No. 105294 - David-Chan vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Pacita David-Chan, an owner-claimant of a residential lot of around 635 square meters in Del Pilar, San Fernando, Pampanga, covered by TCT No. 57596-R.
Private respondent: Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., owner of an intervening lot of approximately 161 square meters alleged to lie between petitioner's lot and MacArthur Highway.
Former owner of a larger tract: Singian Brothers Corporation, owner of a larger lot of 7,239 square meters covered by TCT No. 163033-R and later sold a portion to private respondent.

On September 29, 1987, petitioner filed an amended petition in Civil Case No. 8049 with a prayer for a preliminary prohibitory injunction to enjoin private respondent from fencing its property and thereby depriving her of access to the highway.
Petitioner alleged her lot was nearly surrounded by other immovables; her only access to the highway was a very small opening measuring two feet four inches through private respondent's property.
Petitioner claimed entitlement to a wider compulsory easement of right of way under Article 649 and Article 650, New Civil Code.
Petitioner further alleged that the portion sold by Singian Brothers to private respondent was sold without her knowledge, thereby preventing her exercise of right of pre-emption or redemption.
Prayer: preliminary injunction; judgment ordering private respondent to sell the subject lot to petitioner; damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Private respondent denied the allegations and asserted it had valid title via Deed of Absolute Sale and needed the property.
The Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, in Civil Case No. 4865, entered a judgment of ejectment against persons including petitioner, ordering them to vacate and to pay P2,000 as attorneys' fees, thus finding the former occupants were illegally occupying the property.
Singian Brothers impleaded and answered, denying authorization of tenants and ass...(Subscriber-Only)

Petitioner's enumerated issues in the petition: (I) whether the Court of Appeals erred by not applying the requisites of Art. 649 and Art. 650; (II) whether the Court of Appeals favored respondents on technicalities contrary to Filipino values; (III) whether the Court of Appeals erred in deciding for respondent despite background facts; (IV) whether the Court of Appeals erred in stating petitioner had an outlet measuring two feet four inches without passing through respondent's property.
Petitioner later framed the sole issue in her Memorandum dated February 26, 1993: whether petitioner was entitled to a legal easement of right of way over respondent's property.
Private respondent posed issues: (1) whether petitioner was entitled to an easement of right of way; and (2) whether such right should be granted on the basis of *pakikisama* and *pakikipagkapwa-tao*.