View full case

PACITA DAVID-CHAN v. CA

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a petition for easement of right of way, alleging that her property was surrounded by other immovables and her only access to the highway was through a small opening on private respondent's property. Petitioner believed she was entitled to a wider compulsory easement of right of way through private respondent's property. Petitioner also claimed that she was prevented from exercising her right of pre-emption or right of redemption when private respondent purchased the property from the Singian Brothers Corporation without her knowledge and consent. Petitioner sought an injunction to stop private respondent from fencing the property. Private respondent denied the allegations and stated that the former owners were not obliged to inform petitioner of the sale. The trial court dismissed petitioner's petition and private respondent's counterclaim for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner raised several issues on appeal, including the entitlement to a legal easement of right of way and the recognition and application of Filipino values in granting the easement.

ISSUES:

  1. Is petitioner legally entitled to a right of way through private respondent's property?

  2. In any event, is she entitled to such easement through the recognition and application of the Filipino values of pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa-tao?

RULING:

  1. Petitioner is not legally entitled to an easement of right of way through private respondent's property as she failed to meet the requisites outlined in Articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code. Specifically, she was found to have another existing access to the public highway, and any isolation was due to her own acts.

  2. Petitioner is not entitled to an easement through appeal to pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa-tao. Equity, which is justice outside legality, cannot be applied in this case as it would contravene statutory law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Easement of Right of Way (Civil Code Articles 649 and 650) To claim a compulsory right of way, the following requisites must be met: the estate must be surrounded by other immovables and without adequate outlet to a public highway; proper indemnity must be paid; the isolation should not be due to the proprietor's own acts; and the right of way should be located at the least prejudicial point to the servient estate.

  • Equity Equity can only apply in the absence of statutory law and not against it.

  • Findings of Fact Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, especially when affirming those of the trial court, are binding on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not act as a trier of facts.

  • Principle of "Those who have less in life should have more in law" This equitable principle cannot override clear statutory requirements.

  • Judicial Standards for Easements Strict compliance with statutory standards is necessary because easements impose a burden on another's property. Applicants must clearly prove their entitlement under the law.