FACTS:

Petitioner was the owner of a beachfront property, it later constructed a beach resort thereto. The private respondents on the other hand were the owners of the adjoining properties. Prior to the construction of the resort, the property was being used as passageway in going to the provincial road and city proper. Upon the construction of the first phase, pathway was closed but they were given an alternate route.

HELD:

The following are the requirements for the compulsory easement of right of way—

1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no dequate outlet to a public highway

2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient state and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest

3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity

4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietor’s own acts he private respondents failed to show compliance with the
abovementioned requirements.