QUINTANILLA V. ABANGAN (CIVIL)

We hold that Apolinardito as owner of the dominant estate together with Pefecta failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence and concurrence of all require sites in order to validly claim a compulsory right of way against respondents.

It should be remembered that to be entitled to a LEGAL EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY, the following requisites must be satisfied:

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; and
4. the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

The fourth requisite is absent.

As between a right of way that would demolish a fence of strong materials to provide ingress and egress to a public highway and another right of way which although longer will only require a van or vehicle to make a turn, the second alternative should be preferred. Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is rquired by law as the basis for setting up a compulsory easement. Even in the face of necessity, if it can be satisfied without imposing the easement, the same should not be imposed.

Finally, worthy of note is the undisputed fact that there is already a newly opened public road barely 50 meters away from the property of appellants, which only shows that another requirement of the law, that is, there is no adequate outlet, has not been met to establish a complusory right of way.