SPOUSES VICTOR VALDEZ and JOCELYN VALDEZ v.
SPOUSES FRANCISCO TABISULA and CARIDAD TABISULA
560 SCRA 332 (2008)
The requisites provided in conferment of a legal easement of right of way under the Civil Law must be complied and such existence be proven.
Spouses Victor and Jocelyn Valdez bought from Spouses Francisco and Caridad Tabisula a parcel of land located in San Fernando, La Union. The absolute sale indicated a right of way.
Spouses Tabisula subsequently built a concrete wall on the western side of the subject property. Believing that that side is the intended road right of way mentioned in the deed, Spouses Valdez opposed such act. Conciliation was then initiated. Spouses Tabisula failed to attend the conferences scheduled. This prompted Spouses Valdez to file, after more than six years of execution of the deed, a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages.
Spouses Valdez contended that they purchased the subject property on the assurance of providing them a road right of way. On the other hand, spouses Tabisula averred that the 2-meter easement should be taken from the western portion of the subject property and not theirs.
The trial court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
ISSUES:
Whether or not Spouses Valdez are entitled to the right of way as indicated in the absolute sale
HELD:
Article 1358 of the Civil Code provides that any transaction involving the sale or disposition of real property must be in writing. The stipulation harped upon by Spouses Valdez that they shall be provided a 2 meters wide road right-of-way on the western side of their lot but which is not included in this sale is not a disposition of real property. The proviso that the intended grant of right of way is not included in this sale could only mean that the parties would have to enter into a separate and distinct agreement for the purpose. The use of the word shall, which is imperative or mandatory in its ordinary signification, should be construed as merely permissive where, as in the case at bar, no public benefit or private right requires it to be given an imperative meaning.
As found, however, by the trial court, which is supported by the Sketch of the location of the lots of the parties and those adjoining them, a common evidence of the parties, Spouses Valdez and their family are also the owners of two properties adjoining the subject property which have access to two public roads or highways.
To be conferred a legal easement of right of way under Article 649, the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the property is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity must be paid; (3) the isolation is not the result of the owner of the dominant estates own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servant estate; and (5) to the extent consistent with the foregoing rule, the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. The onus of proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate, herein the spouses Valdez.
Since Spouses Valdez then have more than adequate passage to two public roads, they have no right to demand the grant by spouses Tabisula of an easement on the western side of Spouses Tabisula‘s lot.
