affirmed De Guzman et al's entitlement to legal

easement of right of way.

As none of the parties appealed the said CA

Decision, the same became final and executory.
DE GUZMAN vs FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (2015)
The case was remanded to the RTC to determine
[J. Del Castillo] what properties cover the easement.

SUMMARY AND DOCTRINE Petitioners insist that the right of way pertains only to
Road Lot 15 where the fence separating their
De Guzman et al filed a complaint for easement property from Filinvest’s subdivision, which was
of right of way against Filinvest. The courts supposed to be removed to grant them access
granted the right of way to the petitioners. thereto, is located. On the other hand, it was
respondent's contention that the right of way covers
However during the determination of the scope of the whole stretch from petitioners' property all the
the right of way, De Guzman et al averred that way to its subdivision's gate leading to Marcos
they are only to indemnify Filinvest with the cost Highway.
of the roads which connect the properties
covering Road Lot 15 only. In resolving as to what property it covers, the RTC
deduced that the right of way granted pertains only to
Filinvest claims that the right of way should cover Road Lot 15. The CA agreed with respondent and
the whole stretch from the petitioners’ property all granted the appeal. Hence the petition.
the way to the gate leading to Marcos highway.

The SC ruled that in the case of a legal II. ISSUES:

easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code is
(1) What is the extent of the right of way
controlling as it prescribes the parameters by
granted to petitioners under the RTC Decision as
which the proper indemnity may be fixed.
affirmed by the CA Decision?
Indemnity shall consist of the value of the
land occupied and the amount of the damage (2) Assuming that the subject right of way
caused to the servient estate. pertains to the road network in respondent's
subdivision, is the CA correct in its assessment
Also, with regard to width of the easement, the of indemnity?
SC said that, it is the needs of the dominant
estate which determine the width of the III. RATIO:
passage as dictated by Article 651 of the Civil
Code. (1) The right of way granted to
petitioners covers the network of roads
within respondent's subdivision and not
I. FACTS: merely Road Lot 15.
De Guzman et. al. were co-owners in fee simple of a
The RTC’s failure to provide in its April 30, 1993
parcel of land measuring 15,063 square meters and
Decision the exact measurement of the right of way
situated in Barrio Bulao, Cainta, Rizal, which was later
does not negate the conclusion that the said right of
subdivided among them and for which individual titles
way refers to respondent's network of roads. It must
were issued. The property is enclosed and surrounded
be remembered that the RTC Decision merely
by other real properties belonging to various owners.
mentioned the distance between Marcos Highway
and petitioners' property passing through
One of its adjoining properties is Filinvest Home
respondent's subdivision as 2,350 meters. There was
Subdivision Phase IV-A, a subdivision owned and
no mention with respect to the width of the affected
developed by respondent Filinvest Development
roads which is needed in order to come up with the
Corporation which, coming from petitioners' property,
total area in square meters. This is why the CA also
has a potential direct access to Marcos highway either
directed the determination of the exact measurement
by foot or vehicle. As such, petitioners filed on August
of the right of way when it remanded the case to the
17, 1988 a Complaint for Easement of Right of Way
RTC. During trial, evidence was received that the
against Filinvest before the Regional Trial Court of
roads have a width of 10 meters. Multiplying these
Antipolo.
factors, i.e., length of 2,350 meters x width of 10
meters, the total area of the roads affected is 23,500
Unwilling to grant petitioners a right of way within its square meters.
subdivision, respondent alleged in its Answer that
petitioners have an access to Sumulong Highway
Moreover, petitioners already admitted during the
through another property adjoining the latter's property.
remand proceedings that that the right of way granted to
them affects several road lots within respondent's
https://www.coursehero.com/file/37063390/DE-GUZMAN-vs-FILINVEST-Dancelpdf/
The RTC, rendered a decision granting petitioners subdivision. As borne out by the records, respondent
the right of way. Upon Filinvest’s appeal, the CA formally offered as part of its exhibits a scale map of its
subdivision for the purpose of proving the identity of the
road lots affected by the right of way. At most, a 3-meter wide right of way can already
sufficiently meet petitioners' need for vehicular
Since petitioners already judicially admitted that the access. It would thus be unfair to assess indemnity
right of way affects a number of road lots, they cannot based on the 10-meter road width when a three-meter
not now claim that it only comprises Road Lot 15. Bearing in mind Article 651, the Court finds proper a
Their admission is binding on them. road width of 3 meters in computing the proper
indemnity. Thus, multiplying the road length of 2,350
Besides and logically speaking, if petitioners would meters by a road width of 3 meters, the total area to be
indemnify respondent only for Road Lot 15, it follows indemnified is 7,050 square meters. At a value of
then that said particular road lot should be the only P1,620.00 per square meter, the total value of the land
road lot for which they shall be allowed access. They to form part of the indemnity amounts to
cannot be allowed access to the other road lots P11,421,000.00. It must be made clear, however, that
leading to and from the highway as they are not willing despite their payment of the value of the land on the
to pay indemnity for it. In such a case, the purpose of basis of a three-meter road width or basically for a
the right of way, that is, for petitioners to have access one-way traffic road only, petitioners must be allowed
to the highway, would thus be defeated. to use the roads within respondent's subdivision based
on the existing traffic patterns so as not to disrupt the
2. NO. Indemnity shall consist of the value of the traffic flow therein.
land occupied and the amount of the damage
caused to the servient estate. In addition, petitioners must bear as part of damages the
costs for the removal of the fence in Road Lot 15. Also,
The Court, deemed it necessary to modify the width of the Court takes judicial notice that subdivision residents
the easement which would serve as basis in fixing the are paying monthly dues for purposes of road
value of the land as part of the proper indemnity. maintenance, security, garbage collection, use and
maintenance of other subdivision facilities, etc. In view
Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way of the fact that the road lots affected would be used by
shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate in common with the subdivision
the dominant estate, and may accordingly be residents, the Court deems reasonable to require
changed from time to time. petitioners to pay the homeowner's association in
respondent's subdivision, by way of monthly dues, an
According to Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, a noted amount equivalent to half of the rate of the monthly dues
civilist, it is the needs of the dominant tenement which that the subdivision residents are being assessed. This
determine the width of the passage. shall serve as petitioners' share in the maintenance of
the affected road lots.
The right of way constituting the easement in this
case consists of existing and developed network of IV. DISPOSITIVE
roads. This means that in their construction, the needs
of the dominant estate were not taken into WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby PARTLY
consideration precisely because they were constructed GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
prior to the grant of the right of way. During the remand Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS with
proceedings, it was established that the width of the respect to the proper indemnity in that petitioners shall:
affected roads is 10 meters. Multiplied by the distance (1) pay respondent the amount of
of 2,350 meters, the total area to be indemnified is P11,421,000.00 representing the value of the road
23,500 square meters and at a price of P1,620.00 per lots constituting the right of way; (2) bear the cost
square meter, petitioners must pay respondent the of the removal of the fence located in respondent's
whopping amount of Road Lot 15 as well as the cost for the maintenance
P38,070,000.00 for the value of the land. of such opening; and, (3) pay the homeowner's
association in respondent's subdivision, by way of
Under the circumstances, the Court finds it rather monthly dues, an amount equivalent to half of the
iniquitous to compute the proper indemnity based rate of the monthly dues that the subdivision
on the 10-meter width of the existing roads. residents are being assessed.
width can already sufficiently answer the needs of the dominant estate.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/37063390/DE-GUZMAN-vs-FILINVEST-Dancelpdf/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)