G.R. No. 191997 - Spouses Vargas vs. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.

Petitioners Spouses Marcial and Elizabeth Vargas own a 10,000 sqm parcel of land in Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City (Outside Lot).
In 2000, they purchased a 300 sqm parcel in Vista Real Classica subdivision (VRC Lot), adjacent to their Outside Lot, from Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. (SLR).

By letter dated October 5, 2001, the Spouses demanded a right of way through their VRC Lot into VRC streets and onto Commonwealth Avenue. They filed suit on November 19, 2001 in RTC Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-01-45599) for compulsory easement of right of way.
SLR denied receipt of the letter, invoked the Deed of Restrictions prohibiting access by adjacent lot owners, and argued that granting the easement would alter approved subdivision plans and was not practicable without consent of the homeowners’ association.

Petitioners’ Witness: Marcial Vargas testified on lot adjacency, the only highway outlet via VRC streets, and purchased the VRC Lot solely to secure the right of way. Documents offered included titles, deeds, tax declarations, and sketch plans.
SLR’s Witnesses:

Victor Juego, Jr., civil engineer, testified on his limited role issuing construction permits and that the Deed of Restrictions was indicated in the title.
Fredeswinda Cruz, sales coordinator, explained the chain of sale of the VRC Lot and transfer of the Deed of Restrictions to subsequent buyers.

RTC Decision (Jan 31, 2008): Granted the right of way through VRC, subject to indemnity; awarded attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Court of Appeals (Aug 28, 2009 Decision; Apr 19, 2010 Resolution): Reversed RTC, holding that the Spouses failed to prove (a) the Outside Lot had no other adequate outlet, (b) tender of indemnity, and (c) that the proposed route was least prejudicial to servient estates.
Spouses filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court, reiterating trial findings and faulting SLR’s non-tender of indemnity and lack of rebuttal evidence.

Whether the Spouses proved the requisites for compulsory easement of right of way under Civil Code Articles 649 and 650, namely:

The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway.
The owner tendered proper indemnity.
The isolation of the dominant estate is not self-caused.
The claimed right of way is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estates (and, as far as practicable, shortest).

Whether the Spouses’ failure to present evidence on the accessibility of the three other lots bounding the Outside Lot justified the denial of their claimed easement.