Scribd
Upload
72 views1 page

Supreme Court Ruling on Right-of-Way Case

The respondent claimed an easement of right-of-way through the petitioners' property as it was the most convenient access to the nearest public road. However, the petitioners objected as it would cause substantial damage to the house on their property. The trial court granted the easement but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that it would destroy structures and was not the least prejudicial option, as there were two vacant lots that could be traversed instead. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

Cyndi Orolfo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views1 page

Supreme Court Ruling on Right-of-Way Case

The respondent claimed an easement of right-of-way through the petitioners' property as it was the most convenient access to the nearest public road. However, the petitioners objected as it would cause substantial damage to the house on their property. The trial court granted the easement but the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that it would destroy structures and was not the least prejudicial option, as there were two vacant lots that could be traversed instead. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

Cyndi Orolfo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

GR No.

1198594
HELEN CALIMOSO, MARILYN P. CALIMOSO, AND LIBY CALIMOSO V. AXEL D.
ROULLO

FACTS
In a Complaint for Easement of Right of Way, respondent alleged that he is the owner of
a parcel of land isolated by several surrounding estates, one of which is a lot owned by
the petitioners. Respondent claims that the most convenient access to the nearest public
road passes through the petitioners’ lot. Petitioners objected to the establishment of the
easement as it would cause substantial damage to the house built on the property, and
that respondent has other alternatives . Petitioners also claimed damages due to the
respondent’s allegedly malicious and groundless suit. Later, the RTC granted
respondent’s complaint. Petitioners then appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC
decision ​in toto​. In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners argued that the bedroom
portion of the other concrete house would also be substantially affected, but the CA
denied the motion on the ground that the matters alleged were not raised before the trial
court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the right-of-way may be established

HELD
No. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA, holding that the establishment of the
right-of-way would cause the destruction of the wire fence and a house on the
petitioner’s property, and that although the right-of-way has the shortest distance to a
public road, it is not the least prejudicial, and that an option to traverse two vacant lots is
available.

Art. 650 of the Civil Code, which lays down the requirements for the entitlement to an
easement of right-of-way, provides that the right-of-way claimed is at the point least
prejudicial to the servient estate.

Thus, the Court set aside the CA decision and dismissed the complaint.

You might also like