COSTABELLA CORP. VS.

CA- Easement Right of Way

The convenience of the dominant estate is not the gauge for the grant of compulsory
right of way but rather, it should satisfy all four requisites (emphasis on 1st requisite- it
should be merely for convenience but it must be due to the fact that the dominant estate
does not have an adequate outlet to a public highway.

FACTS:
Petitioners owned a lot wherein they started constructing their beach hotel. Before such
construction, the private respondent, in going to and from their respective properties
and the provincial road, passed through a passageway which traversed the petitioners
property. As a result of the construction, this passageway, including the alternative
route, was obstructed. Private respondent filed for injunction plus damages. In the same
complaint the private respondents also alleged that the petitioner had constructed a dike
on the beach fronting the latters property without the necessary permit, obstructing the
passage of the residents and local fishermen, and trapping debris of flotsam on the
beach. The private respondent also claim that the have acquired the right of way
through prescription. They prayed for the re-opening of the ancient road right of way
(what they called the supposed easement in this case) and the destruction of the dike.
Petitioner answered by saying that their predecessor in interests act of allowing them to
pass was gratuitous and in fact, they were just tolerating the use of the private
respondents. CA ruled in favor of the private respondents.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not easement of right and way can be acquired through prescription?
2) Whether or not the private respondents had acquired an easement of right of way in
the form of a passageway, on the petitioners property?

RULING:
1) NO. Easement of right of way is discontinuous thus it cannot be subject to acquisitive
prescription.

2) NO. one may validly claim an easement of right of way when he has proven the: (1)
the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a
public highway; (2) proper indemnity has been paid; (3) the isolation was not due to acts
of the proprietor of the dominant estate; (4) the right of way claimed is at point least
prejudicial to the servient estate. The private respondent failed to prove that there is no
adequate outlet from their respective properties to a public highway; in fact the lower
court confirmed that there is another outlet for the private respondents to the main road
(yet they ruled in favor of the private respondents). Apparently, the CA lost sight of the
fact that the convenience of the dominant estate was never a gauge for the grant of
compulsory right of way. There must be a real necessity and not mere convenience for
the dominant estate to acquire such easement. Also, the private respondents made no
mention of their intention to indemnify the petitioners. The SC also clarified that least
prejudicial prevails over shortest distance (so shortest distance isnt necessarily the
best choice.)