V.

MISJOINDER
Although the road is a private one, the appellate court ruled that the
designation of the beneficiaries of the easement in the titles of the lots was
neither specific nor exclusive, that there was no reason for petitioner not to
negotiate with Zosimo Opone before bringing this case, and that the closure
by Zosimo Opone of the western side of petitioners lot was contrary to P.D. No.
1529, 50 because it was done without the approval of the Regional Trial Court as
required therein.
In any event, it was held that mere inconvenience to the petitioner in
negotiating with numerous parties for whose benefit the easement was
established was not a reason for granting petitioner an easement through
private respondents property.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but her motion was denied for
having been filed late and for lack of merit. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the easement of way should be established on Opone and Tudtud
properties even tho they are not parties of the case?
HELD:
Where there are several estates surrounding the dominant estate, and
the easement may be established on any of them, the one where the way is
shortest and will cause less damage should be chosen.
The way may be longer and not the most direct way to the provincial
road, but if the establishment of the easement in favor of petitioner on this
roads will cause the least prejudice, then the easement should be
constituted there(Opone & Tudtuds property). This seems to be reasoning of
the Court of Appeals.
However, this can only be determined if the several lot owners (i.e.,
the Opones and their buyers and those of Bienvenido Tudtud) are before
the court, for the determination of the point least prejudicial to the owners
of servient estates (if there are two or more possible sites for an easement)
requires a comparative evaluation of the physical conditions of the estates.
It is not possible to determine whether the estates which would be
least prejudiced by the easement would be those of the owners of the
Opone and Tudtud properties because they have not been heard. Although
evidence concerning the condition of their estates has been presented by private
respondents, it is impossible to determine with certainty which estate would be

CIVPRO CASE BATCH 2

1. MA. LINDA T. ALMENDRAS, petitioner, vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS, URCICIO TAN PANG ENG and
FABIANA YAP, respondents.
GR 110067, MARCH 13, 1997
FACTS:
Almendras property was surrounded by different properties owned by
different peopleon the north was Pang Engs, east was Yaps, west was
Opones, and south was Bongos.
Private respondents Yap and Pang Eng both began building a concrete
wall on Almendras property on the northern and eastern sides of petitioners lot.
For this reason, petitioner wrote private respondents on September 15,
1987 offering to buy a portion of the latters lot, so that petitioner could have
access to the provincial road. But her request was denied by private
respondents on the ground that there was an existing private road on the
western side of petitioners property providing adequate outlet to the
provincial road.
Private respondents claimed that granting petitioners request would
greatly reduce the value of his property, as the proposed right of way cuts across
the middle of the property.
Bongo(south) then enclosed his property with fence on Jan 1998.
On January 29, 1988, petitioner brought this action in the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu for the establishment of a right of way through private
respondents land.
Zosimo Opone subsequently closed off the western side of petitioners
property by erecting a fence on his lot, with the result that petitioners property
became inaccessible.
In the case at bar, the trial court ruled that the easement should be
constituted through the land of private respondents on the eastern side because
it would be the shortest way to the provincial road.
Private respondents appealed
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision,
reversing the trial court. In pointing to the longer way, considered the fact that
this was already existing and the road around petitioners lot on its
western(Opone) and southern(Bongo) boundaries was an adequate outlet for
petitioner to the provincial road.

V. MISJOINDER
court so that private respondents may file a third-party complaint against
the owners of servient estates(opone&Tudtud) through whose lands they
believe the right of way sought by petitioner should be established and
then prove their claim. On the basis of the evidence of all parties concerned
the trial court should render a new decision.
SO ORDERED.

CIVPRO CASE BATCH 2

least prejudiced by the establishment of an easement for petitioner until these
parties have been heard. Any decision holding them liable to bear the
easement would not be binding on them since they are not parties to this
action.
Accordingly, the decisions of the Court of Appeals and of the
Regional Trial Court should be set aside and this case remanded to the trial