Plaintiff , in an action for RIGHT OF WAY

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other
immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way
through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate,
establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage
caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the
gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the
damage caused by such encumbrance. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's
own acts. (564a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEFINED
> Easement or privilege by which one person in a particular class of persons is allowed to pass over another land, usually through
one particular path or line
REQUISITES FOR THE EASEMENT
1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the
distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
PROPER INDEMNITY
1. If the passage is permanent, pay the value of the land occupied by the path plus damages
2. If temporary, pay for the damages caused
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. Private
2. public
Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (565)
N.B: Adequacy to dominant estate
Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may
accordingly be changed from time to time. (566a)
WIDTH OF PATH
> The width may be modified from time to time depending on the reasonable needs of the dominant estate
Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger,
or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity.
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the establishment of the right of way. (567a)
RULE IF LAND OF VENDOR IS ISOLATED FROM THE HIGHWAY
> Indemnity included in the purchase pricethe buyer is the owner of the dominant estate
Art. 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the grantor that becomes isolated, he may demand a right of way
after paying a indemnity. However, the donor shall not be liable for indemnity. (n)
RULES IF GRANTOR OR GRANTEES LAND IS ENCLOSED
1. If the enclosing estate is that of the grantor, the grantee doesnt pay indemnity for the easement
2. If the enclosed estate is that of the grantor, the grantor must pay indemnity
Art. 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the owner of the dominant estate. A
proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said owner to the proprietor of the servient estate. (n)
Plaintiff , in an action for RIGHT OF WAY
OWNERSHIP OF, REPAIRS AND TAXES ON, THE PATH
1. Even though permanent, the path belongs to the servient estate, and he pays all the taxes
2. But the dominant estate
a. Should pay for repairs
b. Should pay proportionate share of taxes to the servient estate
Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be necessary because its owner has joined it to another
abutting on a public road, the owner of the servient estate MAY DEMAND that the easement be extinguished, returning what he
may have received by way of indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the
easement. The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving access to the isolated estate. In both cases, the public
highway must substantially meet the needs of the dominant estate in order that the easement may be extinguished. (568a)
CAUSES FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. Opening of a new road
2. Joining the dominant estate to another
EXTINGUISHMENT NOT AUTOMATIC
> The extinguishment is not automatic
> The law says that the servient estate may demand
> It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the easement remains and he has no duty to refund the indemnity
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE TO A VOLUNTARY EASEMENT NO RETURN OF INDEMNITY IN CASE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT
Art. 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or beautification of a building, to carry
materials through the estate of another, or to raise therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of such
estate shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving payment of the proper indemnity for the damage caused him. (569a)
TEMPORARY EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. The easement here is necessarily only temporary, nonetheless proper indemnity must be given
2. Indispensable is not to be construed literally
3. The owner can make use of Article 656
Art. 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock known as animal path, animal trail or any other, and those for
watering places, resting places and animal folds, shall be governed by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the
absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place. Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the animal path shall not
exceed in any case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail that of 37 meters and 50 centimeters. Whenever it is necessary to
establish a compulsory easement of the right of way or for a watering place for animals, the provisions of this Section and those
of Articles 640 and 641 shall be observed. In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters. (570a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK: WIDTH
1. Animal path75 meters
2. Animal trail37 meters and 50 centimeters
3. Cattle10 meters

The burden of proving the existence of the requisites of easement of right of way lies on the owner of the dominant estate. In the
case at bar, plaintiff-appellants failed to prove that there is no adequate outlet from their property to a public highway. Convenience
of the dominant estate is not a gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. The true standard for the grant of the legal right is
"adequacy." Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway, as in this case,
even if the outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely unjustified. To
justify the imposition of a easement of right of way, there must be real, not ficitious or artificial necessity for it. A right of way is
legally demandable, but the owner of the dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based on arbitrary choice. Art. 650 of the
Civil Code provides for the criteria in the establishment of such easement but it has been settled that the criteria of "least
prejudicial" prevails over shortest distance. Each case must be weighed according to its individual merits and judged according to the
sound discreation of the court (Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80511, 193 SCRA 333 [1991]).
To be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, the preconditions provided under Arts. 649 and 650 of the Civil Code must
be established. These are: (1) that the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public
Plaintiff , in an action for RIGHT OF WAY
highway; (2) that proper indemnity has been paid; (3) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate;
(4) that 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.
9
The burden of proving the existence of these
prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate



































Plaintiff , in an action for RIGHT OF WAY


DIRECT EXAMINATION
We are calling the plaintiff for this action , Ms._____________________, for the purpose of establishing her legal easement of right
of way.

Q: Ms. X, would you please introduce yourself to the court.
A:
Q: How are you related to the Defendant, Ms. Y?
A:
Q: What is the location of the property you are pertaining to?
A:
Q: Could you tell us how do you usually make your way for you to reach the public road?
A:
Q: Could you please illustrate the location of your property and the location of the defendants property.
A:
Q: Is there any other adequate outlet, path, passage, or way, for you to reach the public road?
A: None, thats why i tried to talk to Ms. Y concerning the obstruction of the passage. I told her that we could enter into an
agreement for the establishment of right of way with proper indemnity. I offered her payments for the removal of the blockade as
well as the value of the land which we could use as passage towards the public road and other remuneration for damages.
Q: And how did Ms. Y act in response to your proposal?
A: She rejected my proposal and said that they wanted to have their private space. I tried to make an arrangement for additional
payments since it is a necessity for us to reach the public road and such proposal will not damage Ms Ys property.
Evidence:
1.

2.

3.


Plaintiff , in an action for RIGHT OF WAY

CROSS EXAMINATION
Q: Ms X, before reaching this Court earlier, can you please tell us the way/passage you use to get here.
Q: Your answer seems to be contrary to your testimony earlier that there are NO other outlet for you to get to the public road, am I
correct?
Q: The blockade was built last March 2013, correct? Would you consider that the blockade was built because Ms Y was just trying to
protect
its__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________



Evidence:

1.

2.

3.