Case Summary (G.R. No. 207146)
Petitioner
Spouses Larry and Rosarita Williams
Respondent
Rainero A. Zerda
Key Dates
• July 28, 2004 – Zerda’s complaint for easement of right of way filed in RTC
• September 11, 2006 – RTC Decision dismissing Zerda’s complaint and awarding damages to the Williamses
• February 8, 2007 – RTC Order deleting award of moral damages
• November 28, 2012 – CA Decision reversing RTC and ordering easement, remanding indemnity determination
• April 16, 2013 – CA Resolution denying Williamses’ motion for reconsideration
• March 15, 2017 – Supreme Court Decision affirming the CA
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Civil Code of the Philippines:
– Article 649 (Easement of right of way; requisites; indemnity)
– Article 650 (Least prejudicial point; shortest distance)
Facts
Zerda owns Lot 1177-B (16,160 sq m) with no direct access to a public highway and surrounded by immovable properties, including the Williamses’ Lot 1201-A fronting the national highway. Zerda formally requested a right of way on January 27, 2004, offering reasonable payment or land swap, but the Williamses refused.
RTC Decision
The RTC held that Zerda purchased with knowledge of the lot’s enclosure and that the isolation resulted from his own act. It found the proposed easement was not the shortest route. The court dismissed Zerda’s complaint, awarded P30,000 moral damages and P20,000 exemplary damages on the Williamses’ compulsory counterclaim, then later deleted the moral damages award.
CA Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that prior knowledge does not bar a purchaser from claiming an easement when the property was enclosed before acquisition. It found no bad faith in Zerda’s purchase, affirmed that the requested pathway was both the shortest and least prejudicial, and remanded to the RTC for determination of indemnity under Article 649.
Issue
Whether Zerda is entitled to an easement of right of way over the Williamses’ property.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court applied Articles 649 and 650, confirming four requisites for a compulsory easement:
- Dominant estate enclosed by others, without adequate highway outlet.
- Offer to pay just indemnity.
- Isolation not due to dominant owner’s act.
- Easement located at point least prejudicial—and, c
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207146)
Facts
- Respondent Rainero A. Zerda owned Lot No. 1177-B (dominant estate), 16,160 sq. m., covered by TCT No. T-18074, located in Barangay Lipata, Surigao City.
- Lot No. 7298 (swampy mangrove area) of the Republic lay immediately behind the dominant estate.
- Adjoining properties: Lot No. 1177-C (Woodridge Properties, Inc.) on one side; Lot No. 1206 (Luis G. Dilag) on the other; Lot No. 1201-A (Spouses Williams) in front, along the national highway.
- On July 28, 2004, Zerda filed a complaint for easement of right of way, alleging lack of adequate outlet to a public highway and that his only access was through Spouses Williams’ property.
- Zerda asserted his isolation was due to the natural configuration of his lot, not his own acts, and that his proposed path was least prejudicial.
- Zerda offered to pay reasonable value or to swap a portion of his property; Spouses Williams refused.
- Spouses Williams countered:
- No cause of action, claiming Zerda failed to prove easement requisites.
- They had negotiated in May 2003 with Agripino Sierra (former owner of the dominant estate) for its purchase, but Zerda intervened.
- They undertook developments worth P6,619,678 on Lot No. 1201-A.
- They argued Zerda’s isolation was self-inflicted and that granting right of way would cause great damage.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
- In its September 11, 2006 Decision, the RTC ruled for Spouses Williams, finding:
- Zerda knew of existing improvements and possible isolation when he bought the property.
- The isolation was due to Zerda’s own act of purchase.
- Zerda’s proposed pathway was not the sh