Case Summary (G.R. No. 112331)
Petitioner
Anastacia Quimen, co‐owner of Lot No. 1448-B-1, who denied having promised and later refused to grant a right of way across her property.
Respondent
Yolanda Q. Oliveros, purchaser of Lot No. 1448-B-6-A (behind Anastacia’s lot) and later Lot No. 1448-B-6-B, both lacking adequate access to a public highway.
Key Dates
- February 1982: Yolanda’s purchase of Lot No. 1448-B-6-A and alleged agreement for a right of way.
- February 1986: Purchase of Lot No. 1448-B-6-B.
- December 29, 1987: Filing of complaint for a right of way.
- September 5, 1991: Trial court decision dismissing Yolanda’s complaint.
- May 29, 1996: Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (property rights clause)
- New Civil Code of the Philippines:
• Art. 634 (definition of easement)
• Art. 649 (right of way by law)
• Art. 650 (location of right of way – least prejudicial point)
Factual Background
The Quimen siblings subdivided their inherited land into adjoining lots fronting a municipal road. Anastacia’s lot lay at the extreme left; Antonio’s smaller rear lot, later sold to Yolanda, had no direct road access. Yolanda built a house on Lot 1448-B-6-A using Anastacia’s side boundary as an informal pathway. Anastacia initially promised a 1-m × 5-m right of way at ₱200 per square meter but subsequently barred Yolanda’s passage. After acquiring Lot 1448-B-6-B, Yolanda relied on her parents’ narrow, obstructed way through their store and remained unable to reach the highway conveniently.
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court dismissed Yolanda’s complaint, holding that extending her parents’ existing pathway (by removing part of their store) was the straightest, shortest, and least prejudicial route, whereas cutting through Anastacia’s lot would create a non‐straight detour.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appellate court reversed, finding that the proposed 1-m × 5-m passage across Anastacia’s land would cause less damage—only the removal of an avocado tree—versus demolishing a substantial masonry store on Yolanda’s parents’ lot. It held that such route satisfied the “least prejudicial” criterion of Art. 650, New Civil Code.
Issues on Review
- Whether the appellate court erred in disregarding the parties’ original agreement on a right of way.
- Whether Anastacia’s lot could be deemed a servient estate despite non‐abutting ownership.
- Whether the chosen 1-m × 5-m route was indeed the least prejudicial and shortest feasible access.
Supreme Court Ruling
- The voluntary agreement, even if disputed, is superseded by an easement by necessity under Art. 649 once Yolanda’s parcels were lawfully isolated.
- Anastacia’s lot qualifies as servient because it lies between Yolanda’s rear lot and the highway.
- Under Art. 650, the primary test is least prejudice to the servient estate; shortest distance is secondary. The appellate court’s factual findings—supported by the ocular inspection report and trial testimony—established that demolishing a well‐built store would inflict gr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 112331)
Factual Background
- Anastacia Quimen and her siblings (Sotero, Sulpicio, Antonio, Rufina) inherited a property in Pandi, Bulacan and subdivided it into equal lots.
- Anastacia’s lot (No. 1448-B-1) and Sotero’s lot (No. 1448-B-2) front on the municipal road; behind them lay Antonio’s Lot No. 1448-B-C, later divided into Lots 6-A (behind Anastacia) and 6-B (behind Sotero).
- February 1982: Yolanda Q. Oliveros purchased Lot 6-A from Antonio, with Anastacia as administratrix; the lot lacked direct road access.
- Anastacia allegedly assured Yolanda of a 1 m × 5 m right of way across her lot for ₱200.00 per square meter; Yolanda built a house and used that passage.
- Anastacia later refused payment, barred Yolanda’s access, and the avocado tree on the proposed route remained standing.
- February 1986: Yolanda bought Lot 6-B and used a gratis 19 m pathway through her parents’ lot and past Sotero’s strong-material sari-sari store, which obstructed easy ingress to the municipal road.
Procedural History
- 29 December 1987: Yolanda filed Civil Case No. 690-M-87 in Branch 19, seeking a right of way through Anastacia’s lot.
- Ocular inspection report identified the proposed easement at the extreme right of Anastacia’s property: a clear path of 1 m × 5 m except for an avocado tree.
- 5 September 1991: Trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, reasoning that removing the store obstruction was the shortest, straightest, and least prejudicial route.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals rev