G.R. No. 157285 - Woodridge School, Inc. vs. ARB Construction Co., Inc.

Petitioners Woodridge School, Inc. (Woodridge) and Miguela Jimenez-Javier are usufructuary and registered owners, respectively, of adjacent parcels of land in Bacoor, Cavite. Woodridge holds usufruct over a parcel under TCT No. T-363902 registered under Ernesto T. Matugas and Filomena U. Matugas. Co-petitioner Jimenez-Javier owns the adjacent lot under TCT No. T-330688.
Respondent ARB Construction Co., Inc. (ARB) owns and developed the Soldiers Hills Subdivision, composed of four phases. Phase I is accessible from Marcos Alvarez Avenue. To provide access to Phase II residents, ARB constructed a road that passes through petitioners’ properties.

Petitioners’ properties are surrounded by various estates: Soldiers Hills Subdivision Phases I, III, IV roads, Green Valley Subdivision, and a creek.
Petitioners initially offered P50,000 as indemnity to ARB for the road’s use. ARB rejected the offer and fenced off the road portion fronting petitioners, effectively denying access to public highway.
Petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC of Imus, Cavite, seeking to enjoin ARB from denying road access and to compel a right of way with payment of proper indemnity.

The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, determining the road as part of a subdivision plan automatically vesting ownership to the government upon plan approval under PD No. 1216.
The court held that the road was no longer private property and that ARB had no right to block petitioners from using it. ARB was ordered to desist from preventing access.

The CA reversed the RTC, distinguishing the case from White Plains Association, Inc. v. Legaspi, where the property was specifically set aside for public use by the government.
The CA recognized ARB’s ownership of the road and found that petitioners had a compulsory legal easement right of way because there was no other adequate access to the public highway.
It awarded ARB P500,000 as reasonable indemnity for the use of the road lot, considering equitable factors such as wear and tear and ARB’s role in constructing the road.
On reconsideration, the CA clarified the indemnity was for use, not alienation, and justified the amount as reasonable given the size of the road lot and market value.

Petitioners filed a petition arguing that the road is a property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code and PD No. 1216, thus being public property accessible without compensation.
They insisted ARB is not entitled to indemnity for road usage.

Whether the disputed road lot is public property and thus freely accessible without compensation.
If not public property, whether petitioners are entitled to a compulsory legal easement of right of way over the road lot.
The proper measure of indemnity to be paid for the use of the road lot under a legal easement.