Title
Reyes vs. Valentin
Case
G.R. No. 194488
Decision Date
Feb 11, 2015
Petitioner sought a compulsory easement of right of way over respondents' property, claiming isolation. Courts ruled against her, citing an alternative route via an irrigation canal and failure to prove requisites under the Civil Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5724)

Procedural History

– March 28, 2006: Filing of complaint for compulsory easement before RTC.
– February 2007: Ocular inspection of properties.
– April 11, 2007: RTC dismisses complaint for failure to prove least prejudicial route and existence of adequate outlet.
– August 12, 2010: CA affirms RTC decision.
– October 28, 2010: CA denies motion for reconsideration.
– December 22, 2010: Petition for review under Rule 45 filed with the Supreme Court.

Factual Background

– Petitioner’s lot is entirely surrounded by other estates and has no direct access to public roads.
– Respondents’ 1,500-sqm parcel encircles petitioner’s lot; a 113-sqm portion was identified by petitioner as the least prejudicial easement strip.
– An irrigation canal separates petitioner’s property from an alternate public road; petitioner’s neighbors built bridges to cross it.
– Petitioner traces isolation to her mother’s brother (Dominador Ramos), who allegedly mis-conveyed access rights. Respondents attribute isolation to petitioner’s predecessor’s subdivision.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution (property rights protection).
– Civil Code, Arts. 649–650 on compulsory easement of right of way:
• Dominant estate must be surrounded, without adequate outlet, and isolation not self-caused.
• Easement must follow route least prejudicial to servient estate; indemnity required.

Issue on Appeal

Whether petitioner is entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way over respondents’ property.

Analysis of Compulsory Easement Requisites

  1. Dominant estate surrounded and without adequate outlet.
  2. Isolation not due to acts of dominant-estate owner.
  3. Proposed easement is at the point least prejudicial to servient estate.
  4. Payment of proper indemnity.

Adequate Outlet

– Ocular Inspection Report confirms an existing public road fronting petitioner’s property across a four-meter irrigation canal.
– Petitioner may construct a bridge, as nearby landowners did, subject to National Irrigation Administration conditions.
– Jurisprudence holds that mere inconvenience does not justify imposition of easement if an outlet exists.

Least Prejudice to Servient Estate

– Proposed 113-sqm route would destroy respondents’ garage, garden, and grotto.
– Civil Code requires selection of route causing least damage, even if longer.
– Alternate bridge route over irrigation canal entails less structural prejudice to respondent



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.