ENCARNACION vs.

CA

FACTS:

Petitioner and respondents are the owners of two adjacent estates situated in Buco, Talisay
Batangas. Petitioner owns the dominant estate bounded on the north by the servient estate owned by
respondents and an estate owned by a Magsino. The servient estate of the respondents was in turn
bound on north by the National Highway. In other words, the servient and the estate of Magsino stood
between the National Highway and the petitioner’s estate. To provide access to the highway, a 1-
meter wide roadpath was constituted, taking half a meter each from the estate of the respondents and
that of Magsino. At the time, petitioner started his plant nursery business on his land, using pushcarts
to haul the plants and garden soil to and from the nursery and the highway via the 1-meter road path.
As his business grew, it became increasingly difficult to use the pushcarts and he bought an owner-
type jeep which could not pass through the road path. He requested the respondents to sell him 1 ½
meters of their property so that he may add the same to the existing pathway but the respondents
refised. Hence, the petitioner instituted an action for easement of a right of way over an additional
width over the respondents’ estate. Both the RTC and CA ruled against petitioner holding that the
necessity interposed by petitioner was not compelling to justify interference with the property rights of
respondents considering the presence of a dried river bed only 80 meters away from the dominant
estate through which petitioner may drive his jeep in order to get to the highway.

ISSUE:

W/N the petitioner is entitled to an additional easement of right of way.

HELD:

Yes. While there is a dried river bed less than 100 meters from the dominant tenement, that access is
grossly inadequate. Generally, the right of way may be demanded: (1) when there is absolutely no
access to a public highway, and (2) when, even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use or is
grossly insufficient. In the present case, the river bed route is traversed by a semi-concrete bridge and
there is no ingress nor egress from the highway. For the jeep to reach the level of the highway, it must
literally jump four (4) to five (5) meters up. Moreover, during the rainy season, the river bed is
impassable due to the floods. Thus, it can only be used at certain times of the year. With the inherent
disadvantages of the river bed which make passage difficult, if not impossible, it is if there were no
outlet at all.

Where a private property has no access to a public road, it has the right of easement over adjacent
servient estates as a matter of law.

Under Art. 651 of the CC, it is the needs of the dominant property which ultimately determine the
width of the easement of right of way. As petitioner’s business grew, so did the need for the use of
modern means of conveyance or transport. Petitioner should not be denied a passageway wide enough
to accomodate his jeepney since that is a reasonable and necessary aspect of the plant nursery
business.

Since the easement to be established in favor of petitioner is of a continuous and permanent nature,
the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to
the servient estate pursuant to Artcile 649 of the CC.