8/9/2019 Cristobal vs. Court of Appeals

1/2

CRISTOBAL VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Petitioners own a house and lot situated at No. 10 Visayas Avenue Extension,

Quezon ity, where they have !een residin" #ro$ 1%&1 to the 'resent.

(es'ondent esar )edes$a, *nc., on the other hand, is the owner o# a su!divisionat +arrio uliat alon" Visayas Avenue which once included the dis'utedresidential lots, )ot 1 and )ot , with areas o# 1&- suare $eters and / suare

$eters, res'ectively, located adacent to 'etitioners 'ro'erty.

)ots 1 and were ori"inally 'art o# a 'rivate road 2nown as (oad )ot owned

exclusively !y esar )edes$a, *nc. Petitioners were usin" (oad )ot in "oin"to and #ro$ the nearest 'u!lic road. 3hen Visayas Avenue !eca$e o'erational as

a national road in 1%4%, esar )edes$a, *nc., #iled a 'etition !e#ore the (5 o#

Quezon ity to !e allowed to convert (oad )ot into residential lots.

5he 'etition was "ranted, hence, (oad )ot was converted into residential lotsdesi"nated as )ot 1 and )ot . 6u!seuently, esar )edes$a, *nc., sold !oth lots

to 7acario Pacione in whose #avor 5rans#er erti#icates o# 5itle werecorres'ondin"ly issued. *n turn, 7acario Pacione conveyed the lots to his sonand dau"hter8in8law, res'ondent s'ouses 9esus and )er$a Pacione.

3hen the Pacione s'ouses, who intended to !uild a house on )ot 1, visited the

'ro'erty in 1%4, they #ound out that the lot was occu'ied !y a suatter na$ed

9uanita ;eroni$o and a 'ortion was !ein" used as a 'assa"eway !y 'etitioners toand #ro$ Visayas Avenue. Accordin"ly, the s'ouses co$'lained a!out the

intrusion into their 'ro'erty to the +aran"ay to reach a"ate at the side o# the 'lainti##s lot, a!out 1& $. #ro$ the end o# the 'rivate road,

alle"edly used !y the 'lainti##s !e#ore the adacent lot was enclosed !y !ar!edwires. Accordin" to Atty. 7endoza, counsel #or the de#endants, that "ate no lon"er

exist=ed> at the ti$e o# the ocular ins'ection.

*n his re'ort, only one outlet was indicated !y 6heri## @ela ruz, 9r. 5he other

outlet across an o'en s'ace to the ri"ht re#erred to !y the Pacione s'ouses was notre#lected thereon. owever, on the !asis o# the re'ort as well as the testi$onial

and docu$entary evidence o# the 'arties, the trial court dis$issed the co$'laint

holdin" that one essential reuisite o# a le"al ease$ent o# ri"ht o# way was not'roved, i.e., the a!sence o# an alternative adeuate way or outlet to a 'u!lic

hi"hway, in this case, Visayas Avenue.

5he ourt o# A''eals rendered its assailed decision a##ir$in" the #indin"s o# the

trial court.

8/9/2019 Cristobal vs. Court of Appeals

2/2

*ssue:

3hether or not the 'etitioners are entitled to a co$'ulsory ease$ent o# ri"ht o#

way

(ulin":

No.

5o !e entitled to a co$'ulsory ease$ent o# ri"ht o# way, the 'reconditions

'rovided under Arts. &-% and &/0 o# the ivil ode $ust !e esta!lished. 5heseare: =1> that the do$inant estate is surrounded !y other i$$ova!les and has no

adeuate outlet to a 'u!lic hi"hwayB => that 'ro'er inde$nity has !een 'aidB =?>that the isolation was not due to acts o# the 'ro'rietor o# the do$inant estateB =->

that the ri"ht o# way clai$ed is at a 'oint least 'reudicial to the servient estate

and, in so #ar as consistent with this rule, where the distance #ro$ the do$inantestate to a 'u!lic hi"hway $ay !e the shortest. 5he !urden o# 'rovin" the

existence o# these 'rereuisites lies on the owner o# the do$inant estate.

*n the 'resent case, the #irst ele$ent is clearly a!sent. As #ound !y the trial court

and the ourt o# A''eals, an outlet already exists, which is a 'ath wal2 locatedat the le#t side o# 'etitioners 'ro'erty and which is connected to a 'rivate road

a!out #ive hundred =/00> $eters lon". 5he 'rivate road, in turn, leads to 7a.Elena 6treet which is a!out ./ $eters wide and, #inally, to Visayas Avenue. 5his

outlet was deter$ined !y the court a uo to !e su##icient #or the needs o# the

do$inant estate, hence 'etitioners have no cause to co$'lain that they have noadeuate outlet to Visayas Avenue.

Further, no evidence was adduced !y 'etitioners to 'rove that the ease$ent theysee2 to i$'ose on 'rivate res'ondents 'ro'erty is to !e esta!lished at a 'oint least

'reudicial to the servient estate. *t is incu$!ent u'on the owner o# the do$inant

estate to esta!lish !y clear and convincin" evidence the 'resence o# all the'reconditions !e#ore his clai$ #or ease$ent o# ri"ht o# way $ay !e "ranted.

Petitioners $isera!ly #ailed in this re"ard.