Case Digest (G.R. No. 112331)
Facts:
Anastacia Quimen v. Court of Appeals and Yolanda Q. Oliveros, G.R. No. 112331, May 29, 1996, Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Anastacia Quimen and her siblings inherited and subdivided a parcel in Pandi, Bulacan into contiguous lots; Anastacia’s share was Lot No. 1448‑B‑1 (fronting the municipal road) and behind it was Antonio’s share Lot No. 1448‑B‑6 which he later split into Lots Nos. 1448‑B‑6‑A (behind Anastacia) and 1448‑B‑6‑B (behind Sotero). Respondent Yolanda Q. Oliveros purchased Lot 1448‑B‑6‑A from Antonio in February 1982 through Anastacia acting as administratrix.Yolanda alleged that, before buying, she was assured by Anastacia of a right of way across Anastacia’s lot for P200.00 per square meter; nevertheless Anastacia later refused Yolanda access and barred her passage. Yolanda used a makeshift path over Anastacia’s land to reach the public road and built a house on her lot. In February 1986 Yolanda purchased the adjacent Lot 1448‑B‑6‑B and used a gratis path through her parents’ lot, but the route was obstructed by Sotero’s sari‑sari store built of strong materials and was inadequate for convenient ingress and egress.
On 29 December 1987 Yolanda filed suit (Civil Case No. 690‑M‑87, Branch 19, presided by Judge Camilo O. Montesa, Jr.) for an easement of right of way over a one‑meter by five‑meter portion at the extreme right of Anastacia’s lot. An ocular inspection by the branch clerk confirmed the proposed passage, noting only an avocado tree as obstruction. On 5 September 1991 the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, reasoning that extending the existing pathway by removing part of Sotero’s store would be the shortest and least prejudicial route and that a detour through Anastacia’s lot would not be a straight way.
Yolanda appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed and granted Yolanda the right of way, finding the proposed passage would cause the least damage to the servient estate and declining to award damages because Anastacia had not acted in bad faith. Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review of the appellate decision, challenging (a) the disregard of the parties’ a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in treating petitioner Anastacia’s lot as the servient estate and in holding that respondent Yolanda was entitled to an easement (right of way) through it?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in selecting the one‑meter by five‑meter passage at the extreme right of Anastacia’s lot as the point of easement — i.e., is that point the one “least prejudicial” and, insofar as consistent, the shortest route to the public highway?
- Was any prior voluntary agreement for a right of way ipso jure extinguished by merger when Yolanda later ac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)