G.R. No.

175510 July 28, 2008

VALDEZ V. TABISULA
FACTS:
Petitioner-spouses Victor and Jocelyn Valdez purchased via a January 11, 1993 Deed of !solute
"ale fro# respondent-spouses $rancisco %a!isula and &aridad %a!isula a 200 s'uare #eter (s')#)*
portion (the su!+ect property* of a 380 s') #) parcel of land located in "an $ernando, ,a -nion) %he deed
stated that the petitioners shall be po!"#e# a $ 1%$ &e'es ("#e oa# ")h'*o+*(a, o- 'he (es'e-
s"#e of their lot !ut .hich is not included in this sale)

/espondents su!se'uently !uilt a concrete .all on the .estern side of the su!+ect property) 0elievin1
that that side is the intended road ri1ht of .ay #entioned in the deed, petitioners, throu1h their
representative, reported the #atter to the !aran1ay for #ediation and conciliation) /espondents failed to
attend the conferences scheduled !y the !aran1ay, ho.ever, dra.in1 petitioners to file in pril 1999 or
#ore than si2 years after the e2ecution of the deed a &o#plaint for "pecific Perfor#ance .ith
Da#a1es a1ainst respondents !efore the /%& of "an $ernando &ity, ,a -nion) 3n their co#plaint,
petitioners alle1ed that they purchased the su!+ect property on the stren1th of respondents4 assurance of
providin1 the# a road ri1ht of .ay) %hey thus prayed that respondents !e ordered to provide the su!+ect
property .ith a 25-#eter .ide ease#ent and to re#ove the concrete .all !loc6in1 the sa#e)
/espondents, in their ns.er averred that the 2 5-#eter ease#ent should !e ta6en fro# the .estern
portion of the su!+ect property and not fro# theirs7 and petitioners and their fa#ily are also the o.ners of
t.o properties ad+oinin1 the su!+ect property, .hich ad+oinin1 properties have access to t.o pu!lic roads
or hi1h.ays) /%& dis#issed petitioners4 co#plaint) & affir#ed) %he & held that the deed only
conveyed o.nership of the su!+ect property to petitioners, and that the reference therein to an ease#ent in
favor of petitioners is not a definite 1rant-!asis of a voluntary ease#ent of ri1ht of .ay)

3""-89 :;< petitioners are entitled to a ri1ht of .ay considerin1 that the ri1ht of .ay is included in the
deed of a!solute sale e2ecuted !y the parties
=8,D9 <o)
rticle 13>8 of the &ivil &ode provides that any transaction involvin1 the sale or disposition of real
property #ust !e in .ritin1) %he stipulation harped upon !y petitioners that they ?shall !e provided a 2 5
#eters .ide road ri1ht-of-.ay on the .estern side of their lot!ut .hich is not included in this sale@ is not
a disposition of real property) %he proviso that the intended 1rant of ri1ht of .ay is ?not included in this
sale@ could only #ean that the parties .ould have to enter into a separate and distinct a1ree#ent for the
purpose) The .se o+ 'he (o# /shall01 (h"2h "s "&pea'"!e o &a-#a'o, "- "'s o#"-a,
s")-"+"2a'"o-0 sho.l# be 2o-s'.e# as &eel, pe&"ss"!e .here, as in the case at !ar, no pu!lic !enefit
or private ri1ht re'uires it to !e 1iven an i#perative #eanin1) Bes"#es0 a #o2.&e-' s'"p.la'"-) a
!ol.-'a, ease&e-' &.s' be e2o#e# "- 'he Re)"s', o+ 3ope', "- o#e -o' 'o pe4.#"2e 'h"#
pa'"es under rticles A08 and A09 of the &ivil &ode)
A- ease&e-' o se!"'.#e "s /a eal ")h' constituted on another4s property, corporeal and i##ova!le,
!y virtue of .hich the o.ner of the sa#e has to a!stain fro# doin1 or to allo. so#e!ody else to do
so#ethin1 on his property for the !enefit of another thin1 or person)@ %he statutory !asis of this ri1ht is
rticle B13 of the &ivil &ode) Thee ae '(o 5"-#s o+ ease&e-'s a22o#"-) 'o so.2e 6 b, la( o b,
'he ("ll o+ 'he o(-es as provided in rticle B19 of the &ivil &ode) 3e'"'"o-es ae -e"'he e-'"'le# 'o
a le)al o 2o&p.lso, ease&e-' o+ ")h' o+ (a,) $or to !e entitled to such 6ind of ease#ent, the
preconditions under rticles BC9 and B>0 of the &ivil &ode #ust !e esta!lished)

Th.s0 'o be 2o-+ee# a le)al ease&e-' o+ ")h' o+ (a, .-#e A'"2le 7890 'he +ollo("-) e:."s"'es
&.s' be 2o&pl"e# ("'h9 (1* the property is surrounded !y other i##ova!les and has no ade'uate outlet
to a pu!lic hi1h.ay7 (2* proper inde#nity #ust !e paid7 (3* the isolation is not the result of the o.ner of
the do#inant estate4s o.n acts7 (C* the ri1ht of .ay clai#ed is at the point least pre+udicial to
theservient estate7 and (>* to the e2tent consistent .ith the fore1oin1 rule, the distance fro# the do#inant
estate to a pu!lic hi1h.ay #ay !e the shortest) %he onus of provin1 the e2istence of these prere'uisites
lies on the o.ner of the do#inant estate, herein petitioners) s found, ho.ever, !y the trial court, .hich
is supported !y the "6etch of the location of the lots of the parties and those ad+oinin1 the#, a co##on
evidence of the parties, petitioners and their fa#ily are also the o.ners of t.o properties ad+oinin1 the
su!+ect property .hich have access to t.o pu!lic roads or hi1h.ays) S"-2e pe'"'"o-es 'he- ha!e &oe
'ha- a#e:.a'e passa)e 'o '(o p.bl"2 oa#s0 'he, ha!e -o ")h' 'o #e&a-# 'he )a-' b, espo-#e-'s
o+ a- ease&e-' o- 'he /(es'e- s"#e o+ ;espo-#e-'s<= lo'.1