Pathway Andres Servient Easement Estate Prejudicial Highway Civil

VII.

In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the national highway was a pathway crossing Branda's property. Andres and others have been using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980.

In 2006, Branda fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres' access to the national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but Branda refused, claiming that there was another available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to use.

To settle their dispute, Andres and Branda hired Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After the survey, the engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route and will need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of Branda's property. On the other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the shorter route but would significantly affect the use of Branda's property.

In light of the engineer's findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties' right of way dispute. (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Andres is not entitled to the easement of right of way for Pathway A.  Pathway B must be used.

The owner of a dominant estate may validly obtain a compulsory right of way only after he has established the existence of four requisites, to wit:

1.  the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and is without adequate outlet to a public highway;

2.  after payment of the proper indemnity;

3.  the isolation was not due to the proprietor's own acts; and

4.  the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to the public highway may be the shortest. (Art. 650, Civil Code).

However, the Supreme Court has consistently rules that in case both criteria cannot be complied with, the right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

The first and fourth requisites are not complied with.  First, there is another available outlet to the national highway (Pathway B).  Second, the right of way obtained (Pathway A) is not the least prejudicial to Brando's property, as evidenced by the reports of the geodetic and civil engineer.  

When there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway, even if the said outlet, for one reaason or another, be inconvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely unjustified (Costabella Corp. v. CA, GR No. 80511, January 25, 1991).  The rule that the easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate is controlling (Quimen v. Quimen, CA, GR No. 112331, May 29, 1996).

Note: it is not clear from the problem if there exists an easement in favor of the lot belonging to Andres and if Brando's lost is burdened as a servient estate by a right of way as a servient estate.  If there is such an easement burdening Brando's lot, was it created as a legal easement or as a voluntary easement.  If the use of Pathway A was only by tolerance then Brando may close it.  Andres must ask for the constitution of a legal easement through Brando's lot by proving the four requisites required by Articles 649 and 650 Civil Code.