LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR (mother) and NESTOR BALTAZAR (son), petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and DANIEL

PANGANIBAN, respondents
Vda. de Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals / G.R. No. 106082 (June 27, 1995)
Romero, J. / kam

SUBJECT MATTER: Easements

CASE SUMMARY: Private respondent Panganiban first brought an action in 1989 for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against the Baltazars for closing the right of way that he has been using for 30 years. The RTC dismissed this complaint for
the RTC found the simultaneous existence of two other passageways that can be used by Panganiban. The CA reversed the RTCs
ruling, finding that the two other passageways were mere temporary pathways (never existed simultaneously) that were granted by
Panganibans other neighbors upon his request (since the Baltazars prevented him from using his right of way on Lot 1026-B).
This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Baltazars. The SC found that as provided in Arts. 649 & 650 (NCC),
the four requisites in order for a compulsory right of way can may be claimed by an owner of an estate were all established by
Panganibans case. No reversible errors were found in CAs findings and conclusion, and SC affirmed the CAs judgment.

DOCTRINES:
By the express provision of Articles 649 & 650, the owner of an estate may claim compulsory right of way only after he has
established the existence of four requisites:
1. the 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 proprietors own acts; and
4. the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and in so far as consistent with this rule, where
the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.
Francisco vs. IAC states that it is not correct to impute to the provision (requisites above) a strict requirement to pay proper
indemnity in advance of a suit which, in addition to creating an easement, is precisely to fix the amount of the indemnity to be
paid therefor.

FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari on the CAs reversal of the RTC judgment. CA granted the right of way to private
respondent Panganiban.
In 1989, Panganiban filed a complaint against the Baltazars for the establishment of a
permanent and a perpetual easement of right of way for him to have access to the provincial
road. He prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Panganiban merely bought the lot. Lot 1027 used to be part of Lot 1026. The right of way
(Lot 1026-B) has been used by Panganiban for 30 years during the lifetime of Nestors
grandfather, Fidel, and his father Onisimo. (Lot 1026-A is Baltazars current property.)
When the petitioners constructed their present residence, they closed and obstructed the
right of way being used by Panganiban.

RTC proceedings Court of Appeals proceedings

Panganiban prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction against the Baltazars for they have closed the right
of way that he has been using.
The Baltazars opposed his prayer by arguing:
1. that there exists two other rights of way adjacent to
Panganibans property.
2. that Panganiban had abandoned the alleged right of way.
After conducting an ocular inspection and hearings, RTC
dismissed the complaint.
RTC findings:
a. A 1.20 m wide, 10.40m long passageway running along one
side of the Baltazars property was claimed to have been
used by Panganiban as an ingress and egress from his
property in going to and coming from the provincial road,
until some 3 years before this action was instituted, when
the defendants prevented him from using the same.
b. The property of plaintiff is accessible to and from the
provincial road via 2 other passageways:
1) A passageway over the property of Legaspi
2) A passageway over Calimons property, which was
being used by Panganiban at the time of this action.
Panganiban appealed to the CA, claiming that the RTC
dismissed his complaint in flagrant and clear violation of Arts.
649 and 650 (NCC).
CA reversed the order of dismissal and granted Panganibans
right of way.
CA findings:
a. The shortest, direct, and convenient way to gain access as an
egress and ingress to Braulio St. from Panganibans
dominant lot is to pass through Baltazars servient estate.
b. The lot 1026-B has been existing, recognized,
acknowledged, tolerated, and used by Panganiban as a
right of way for 30 years during the lifetime of Fidel and
Onisimo.
c. The right of way was closed and obstructed by Loreto
and Nestor by closing the gate and placing plants across
the gate when they constructed their present residence.
d. That Panganiban was compelled to request for a temporary
pathway on Lot 1025 and when that was closed, on Lot
1028.
(Take note of the underlined findings letter B in RTC and letter
D in CA, will be discussed further in the SCs ratio.)
ISSUES (HOLDING):
As presented by petitioners:
1. (Not important, already resolved by the SC. See RATIO #1 too.) WON an easement of right of way can be granted to a
person who has two other existing passageways adjacent to his property which he is using in going to and from his property?
(NOT AN ISSUE, SEE SCS EXPLANATION #1)
2. WON an easement of right of way can be established through the alleged continuous use thereof in light of the doctrine laid
down by this Court in the case of Ronquillo v. Roco which held that an easement of right of way is discontinuous in nature
since the dominant estate cannot be continually crossing the servient estate but can do so only at intervals? (Ignored by SC)

ISSUE ACCDG TO SC: WON Panganiban is entitled to claim an easement of right of way over the Baltazars property? (YES)

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. There is a discrepancy in the findings between the RTC and CA regarding the existence of the two passageways. The RTC
held that though the passageway through Baltazars property is the least prejudicial to the servient state and the shortest
distance between Panganibans property and the provincial road, the claimed easement cannot be granted due to the strained
relations between the parties. The RTC added that if the 2 other passageways will no longer be available to Panganiban, then
the claimed easement of right of way over petitioners property would be granted. It appears that the 2 passageways are
simultaneously existing as alternative pathways for Panganiban.
The CA found that the existence of the two passageways was not simultaneous and was granted by Panganibans
neighbors, Calimon and Legaspi, only upon Panganibans request when Baltazar closed the claimed passageway. This is
supported by evidence.

ON THE ONLY ISSUE OF THE CASE:

In Locsin vs. Climaco, the Court said that by the express provision of Arts. 649 & 650, the owner of an estate may claim
compulsory right of way only after he has established the existence of four requisites:
1. the 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 proprietors own acts; and
4. the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and in so far as consistent with this rule,
where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.

1. The first requisite is already established (also see illustration above) by the RTC in its ruling.
2. For the second requisite, Francisco vs. IAC states, There would indeed be some point in looking askance 1 at a reading of the
law which would impute to it a strict requirement to pay proper indemnity in advance of a suit the purpose of which, in
addition to creating an easement, is precisely to fix the amount of the indemnity to be paid therefor. The Court agrees with
the CA when it ordered the remand of this case to the lower court for the purpose of fixing the proper indemnity.
3. For the third requisite, Panganiban was already able to establish that the isolation was not due to his own act since he merely
bought the lot. (See FACTS)
4. As for the fourth requirement, both parties agreed that the passage claimed by Panganiban as his right of way, compared to
the other passageways, is the shortest distance from Panganibans lot to Braulio Street. The Baltazars could not have been
inconvenienced by the passageway for, as bourne out of records, the same is separate and distinct from the gate used by them
to enter their lot and residence.

Panganiban is entitled to claim a compulsory easement of right of way over petitioners Lot 1026-B.

DISPOSITIVE: CA decision AFFIRMED.

1
With an attitude or look of suspicion or disapproval