COSTABELLA CORP. VS. CA- Easement Right of Way

The convenience of the dominant estate is not the gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way but rather, it should satisfy all four requisites (emphasis on 1st requisite- it should be merely for convenience but it must be due to the fact that the dominant estate does not have an adequate outlet to a public highway.

FACTS:

Petitioners owned a lot wherein they started constructing their beach hotel. Before such construction, the private respondent, in going to and from their respective properties and the provincial road, passed through a passageway which traversed the petitioner’s property. As a result of the construction, this passageway, including the alternative route, was obstructed. Private respondent filed for injunction plus damages. In the same complaint the private respondents also alleged that the petitioner had constructed a dike on the beach fronting the latter’s property without the necessary permit, obstructing the passage of the residents and local fishermen, and trapping debris of flotsam on the beach. The private respondent also claim that the have acquired the right of way through prescription. They prayed for the re-opening of the “ancient road right of way” (what they called the supposed easement in this case) and the destruction of the dike. Petitioner answered by saying that their predecessor in interest’s act of allowing them to pass was gratuitous and in fact, they were just tolerating the use of the private respondents. CA ruled in favor of the private respondents.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not easement of right and way can be acquired through prescription?

2) Whether or not the private respondents had acquired an easement of right of way in the form of a passageway, on the petitioner’s property?

RULING:

1) NO. Easement of right of way is discontinuous thus it cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription.

2) NO. one may validly claim an easement of right of way when he has proven the: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity has been paid; (3) the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; (4) the right of way claimed is at point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The private respondent failed to prove that there is no adequate outlet from their respective properties to a public highway; in fact the lower court confirmed that there is another outlet for the private respondents to the main road (yet they ruled in favor of the private respondents). Apparently, the CA lost sight of the fact that the convenience of the dominant estate was never a gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. There must be a real necessity and not mere convenience for the dominant estate to acquire such easement. Also, the private respondents made no mention of their intention to indemnify the petitioners. The SC also clarified that “least prejudicial” prevails over “shortest distance” (so shortest distance isn’t necessarily the best choice.)