Quimen v. Court of Appeals (1996): Right of Way

Anastacia Quimen and her brothers and sister inherited land in Pandi, Bulacan, and divided it among themselves. Most of the shares faced the municipal road. One brother's share lay behind the others and had no access to the road. He divided it into two small lots.

In 1982, Yolanda Q. Oliveros, a niece, bought one of these interior lots from her uncle through Anastacia, who was then acting as his administrator. According to Yolanda, she was hesitant because the lot had no access to a public road. Anastacia assured her that she would give her a right of way through her adjoining property for P200.00 per square meter. Yolanda built a house and used a part of Anastacia's land as her passage to the road. But when she offered to pay, Anastacia refused the payment and later barred her from passing.

In 1986, Yolanda bought the second interior lot, which lay behind her father's property. Her parents let her use a pathway beside their house for free. But that pathway ended behind her father's store, which was made of strong materials and took up the whole front of his lot, so the road could not be reached easily from it.

Yolanda sued for a right of way through Anastacia's property. An inspection found that the proposed way ran along the edge of Anastacia's lot, one meter wide and about five meters long, to go around the store. It was unobstructed except for an avocado tree. The trial court dismissed the case, saying it was more practical to extend the existing straight path by removing the part of the store that blocked it. The Court of Appeals reversed and granted Yolanda the right of way through Anastacia's property. Anastacia appealed.

Was Yolanda entitled to a compulsory right of way through Anastacia's property, and was the proposed one-meter by five-meter path the proper place for it, even though it was not the shortest route?

The Supreme Court denied Anastacia's petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

What a right of way is. The Court described a right of way as a privilege to pass over another's property when one's land is surrounded by other properties without an adequate outlet to a public highway. Under Article 649 of the Civil Code, the owner of the enclosed land can demand a right of way through the neighboring land after paying the proper indemnity. The voluntary arrangement between the two had, in the Court's view, become a legal easement.

The four requisites. The Court listed the conditions for a valid grant of a right of way: (a) the property is surrounded by other properties without an adequate outlet to a public highway; (b) the owner is willing to pay the proper indemnity; (c) the isolation was not due to the owner's own acts; and (d) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the property it crosses. All four were present. Yolanda's land was hemmed in, she had offered to pay P200.00 per square meter as agreed, she did not cause the isolation, and the path was the least prejudicial.

Least damage comes before shortest distance. Article 650 of the Civil Code says a right of way shall be set at the point least prejudicial to the land it crosses and, as far as consistent with that rule, where the distance to the highway is shortest. The Court said "least prejudice prevails over shortest distance." The shortest route is often the least damaging, but not always, for example when a permanent building is in the way. If the two cannot be met together, "the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest."

The tree, not the store. Using the father's pathway would have meant demolishing a store made of strong materials. The path through Anastacia's lot was a little longer and required only cutting down one avocado tree. The Court said the second option "should be preferred."

A compulsory right of way requires that the property be enclosed without an adequate outlet to a public highway, that the owner pay the proper indemnity, that the isolation not be the owner's own doing, and that the way be at the point least prejudicial to the servient property; least prejudice prevails over shortest distance when the two do not coincide.

In Quimen, the enclosed lot came from family land divided among heirs, and the back lots had no frontage on the road. The case explains where a right of way should go. The owner of the land being crossed cannot insist on the "shortest" route if it would cause more damage, and the owner of the enclosed land must pay for the way. If the owner himself caused the isolation, Article 649 says the easement is not compulsory.

See right of way easement for how a right of way is claimed and paid for.

Made-up illustration: Bea buys a lot behind three houses with no road access. One neighbor's lot has a concrete garage blocking the shortest route. Another neighbor's lot is open, with only a few plants along the side. Under Quimen, a court may set the path along the open lot, even if it is a little longer, because it causes less damage. Bea must pay the proper indemnity.

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a dispute about real property, see where to find legal help.