Quimen v CA

Anastacia Quimen v. CA & Yolanda Oliveros Facts •

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Anastacia Quimen together with her brothers Sotero, Sulpicio, Antonio and sister Rufna inherited a piece o property in Pandi, Bulacan.  They diided the the property property e!ually among themseles. All their shares, e"cept Antonio#s, abutted the municipal road.  $olanda  $olanda %lieros %lieros &Sotero#s &Sotero#s daughter' daughter' purchased purchased a lot rom rom her uncle Antonio Antonio through her aunt Anastacia while she was acting as his administratri". At frst, $olanda was hesitant to buy the land since it had no access to a public road. But Anastacia assured her that she would gie her a right o way on her ad(oining property or P)**.**+s!.m.  $olanda  $olanda constructed constructed a house house on the lot and and used a portion portion o Anastacia#s Anastacia#s property as her passageway to the public highway. But when $olanda oered to pay or the use o the pathway, Anastacia reused to accept the payment. She was also barred by Anastacia rom passing through the property.  $olanda  $olanda purchased purchased the other other lot o Antonio, Antonio, located directly directly behind behind the property o her parents who proided proided her a pathway gratis et amore between their house. o  The pathway e"tended e"tended about - - meters rom rom the lot o $olanda $olanda behind the sari/sari store o Sotero, and Anastacia#s perimeter ence. o  The store is made o strong strong materials and and occupies the the entire rontage rontage o the lot measuring our &0' meters wide and nine meters &' long. o Although the pathway leads to the municipal road it is not ade!uate or ingress and egress. o  The municipal road cannot cannot be reached reached with acility acility because the the store itsel obstructs the path so that one has to pass through the bac1 entrance and the acade o the store to reach the road.  $olanda  $olanda fled an action with the court praying praying or a right right o way through through Anastacia#s property. An ocular inspection upon instruction o the presiding (udge was conducted by the branch cler1 o court. o  The proposed proposed right o way way was at the e"treme right right o Anastacia#s Anastacia#s property acing the public highway, starting rom the bac1 o Sotero#s sari/sari store and e"tending inward by one &-' meter to her property and turning turning let or about fe &2' meters to aoid the store o Sotero in order to reach the municipal road and the way was unobstructed e"cept e"cept or an aocado tree standing in the middle.  T3  T3 dismissed the the complaint or or lac1 o cause cause o action. o  The right o way way through through Sotero#s Sotero#s property property was a straight straight path and to allow a detour by cutting through Anastacia#ss property would no longer ma1e the path straight. o 4ence, it was more practical to e"tend the e"isting pathway to the public road by remoing that portion o the store bloc1ing the path as that was the shortest route to the public road and the least pre(udicial to the parties concerned than passing through Anastacias property. 3A reersed and held that she was entitled to a right o way.

o

 The way proposed by $olanda would cause the least damage and detriment to the serient estate.

Issues: 1. 5o6 respondent $olanda was entitled to the easement

 $7S  The oluntary easement in aor o $olanda has become a legal easement.  The conditions or a alid grant o easement are satisfed. a.' the dominant estate is surrounded by other immoables without an ade!uate outlet to a public highway8 o  The eidence clearly shows that the property o priate respondent is hemmed in by the estates o other persons including that o petitioner. b.' the dominant estate is willing to pay the proper indemnity o  $olanda oered to pay P)**.** per s!uare meter or her right o way as agreed between her and Anastacia c.' the isolation was not due to the acts o the dominant estate8 d.' the right o way being claimed is at a point least pre(udicial to the serient estate.  • •

• •

 These acts are confrmed in the ocular inspection report o the cler1 o court.  T3 itsel declared that the properties were totally isolated from the public highway and there appears an imperative need for an easement of right of way to the public highway .

). 5o6 the right o way proposed by respondent $olanda was the least onerous to the parties   $7S  The criterion o least prejudice to the serient estate must preail oer the criterion o shortest distance. As between a right o way that would demolish a store o strong materials to proide egress to a public highway, and another right o way which although longer will only re!uire an aocado tree to be cut down, the second alternatie should be preerred. •

•