Case Summary (G.R. No. 191997)
Petitioner
Marcial and Elizabeth Vargas, spouses and registered owners of the Outside Lot and the VRC Lot.
Respondent
Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., developer and servient estate owner of VRC subdivision streets.
Key Dates
• October 5, 2001: Petitioner’s demand letter for right of way.
• November 19, 2001: Complaint filed in Quezon City RTC (Branch 77).
• January 31, 2008: RTC decision granting easement.
• August 28, 2009: Court of Appeals decision reversing RTC.
• April 19, 2010: CA resolution denying reconsideration.
• July 27, 2022: Supreme Court decision denying petition.
Factual Background
The Outside Lot is surrounded by other privately owned parcels and lacks direct access to a public highway. The Vargas spouses acquired the adjacent VRC Lot expressly to secure an outlet. They requested SLR to establish a right of way via VRC’s internal streets to Commonwealth Avenue. SLR denied receipt of the demand, cited a perimeter fence requirement, deed restrictions prohibiting external access, and practical obstacles including required consents and alteration of subdivision plans.
Procedural History
At trial, the Spouses presented testimony and title documents establishing adjacency and intended route. SLR’s witnesses confirmed deed restrictions and that the sale contract prohibits use as access. The RTC granted the easement subject to indemnity and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals, applying strict requisites for compulsory easements, held that petitioners failed to prove: (1) absence of other adequate outlets; (2) tender of indemnity; and (3) selection of the least prejudicial route.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC found:
- Outside Lot is isolated by surrounding immovables.
- The only outlet to Commonwealth Avenue is through VRC’s streets.
- Granting an easement involves only permission to pass and does not alter subdivision plans.
- Easements are statutory limitations and override restrictive covenants.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA emphasized the strict nature of compulsory easements and ruled that petitioners failed to:
- Disprove the existence of other adequate outlets.
- Submit proof of indemnity tender.
- Demonstrate that the proposed path is least prejudicial, given lack of evidence on all surrounding lots.
Supreme Court Issue
Whether petitioners established the legal requisites for a compulsory right of way under Articles 649–650 of the Civil Code, as applied with due regard to the 1987 Constitution’s protection of property rights.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution: protection of private property.
• Civil Code of the Philippines:
– Article 613 (definition of servitude).
– Article 649 (statutory easement for benefit of isolated immovable).
– Article 650 (duties of dominant estate owner).
• Presidential Decree No. 957: controls subdivision alterations.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Court reiterated that petitioners bear the burden to prove:
- The dominant estate is surrounded and lacks adequate outlet.
- Tender of just indemnity.
- Isolation not self-imposed.
- Route is least prejudicial and, if consistent, shortest.
On the first requisite, evidence showed the Outside Lot adjoins three non-VRC lots (Lots 9, 10, 14, PCS-2587) but provided no data o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191997)
Facts
- Petitioners Marcial and Elizabeth Vargas own a 10,000-sqm parcel (“Outside Lot”) in Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City.
- In 2000, they purchased an adjacent 300-sqm lot (“VRC Lot”) in the Vista Real Classica (VRC) subdivision, developed by Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. (SLR).
- By letter dated October 5, 2001, the Vargas spouses demanded from SLR a right of way from the Outside Lot through the VRC Lot, via VRC’s internal streets, onto Commonwealth Avenue.
- On November 19, 2001, they filed a complaint in the Quezon City RTC (Civil Case No. Q-01-45599) praying for the establishment of the easement of right of way.
- SLR denied receipt of the demand letter, contended it never discussed or corresponded on the subject, and argued:
• Its subdivision is enclosed by a perimeter fence.
• The VRC Deed of Restrictions prohibits use of lots as access to adjacent properties outside VRC.
• The Outside Lot’s isolation is not caused by VRC.
• Granting the easement would alter approved subdivision plans (PD No. 957).
• The proposed route is not practicable without consent of the homeowners’ association and other lot owners.
Procedural History
- Trial before RTC Branch 77 produced the following testimony and evidence:
• Marcial Vargas confirmed lot adjacency, purchase purpose, and route through Barcelona, Baltimore and Vista Real avenues to Commonwealth Avenue.
• Certificates of title, tax declarations, sketch plans, deed of sale, and the October 5, 2001 demand letter were offered.
• SLR witnesses (a civil engineer and a sales coordinator) testified on the limits of their roles and on the Deed of Restrictions’ transfer to successive buyers. - The RTC