Pacita David-Chan v. Court of Appeals

Case Title and Citation

Pacita David-Chan, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
G.R. No. 105294, February 26, 1997
Manila Third Division
Ponente: Justice Panganiban

---

Facts

• On September 29, 1987, petitioner filed with the trial court an amended petition seeking a preliminary prohibitory injunction to stop private respondent from fencing its property and depriving her of access to the highway.
• Petitioner claimed her property, about 635 square meters in Del Pilar, San Fernando, Pampanga (TCT No. 57596-R), was almost completely surrounded by adjacent properties, with the only access to the highway via a two feet four inches wide opening through private respondent’s property.
• She sought a wider compulsory easement of right of way through the private respondent’s property. The prospective servient estate was a portion of a larger lot (7,239 square meters, TCT No. 163033-R) formerly owned by Singian Brothers Corporation and sold to private respondent without petitioner’s knowledge; petitioner claimed this deprived her of pre-emption or redemption rights.
• Private respondent denied the allegations. The Singian Brothers were impleaded; they contended they did not authorize any person to receive rentals for the disputed lot and that rights of way cannot be acquired by prescription since petitioner was not a tenant.
• The trial court (RTC) dismissed petition for lack of merit and ordered petitioner to vacate the premises, with attorney’s fees and costs against petitioner. The ejectment judgments also indicated that the Singian Brothers’ land was free of liens and encumbrances, and that private respondent did not need to sell the 161-square-meter lot.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. The trial and appellate court findings included: petitioner built a concrete fence separating her property from the Pineda property and even closed a small opening that provided access to the highway; ezért, she was isolated and had no adequate outlet to the public highway; she also failed to tender proper indemnity for the easement.
• The petition challenged the CA’s affirmation of the lower court’s decision and argued for humanitarian considerations under articles 649 and 650 of the Civil Code.

---

Issues

1. Is petitioner legally entitled to a right of way through private respondent’s property?
2. Should she be granted such easement by applying Filipino values of pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa-tao?

---

Ruling

1. No — The petitioner is not legally entitled to a right of way through private respondent’s property. The four requisites under Articles 649-650 were not proven; the court found that petitioner caused her own isolation by erecting a fence and closing the narrow opening, and that there existed alternative access through the Pineda property. The inability to prove proper indemnity and other requisites also weighed against relief.
2. No — Equity cannot override statutory law. Filipino values such as pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa-tao do not permit relief where the law does not authorize it; equitable arguments cannot prevail over the statutory requirements for easements.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Articles 649-650 establish the four requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables with no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity is paid; (3) isolation is not due to the claimant’s own acts; and (4) the right of way is established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, prioritizing the shortest distance to the public highway where possible.
• The Court of Appeals’ factual findings, which were upheld by the RTC, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless an exception applies; the petition did not show an applicable exceptional circumstance.
• The record showed petitioner built a fence on the southern boundary and closed the small opening to the National Highway, which undermined the third requisite (isolation not due to owner’s acts). The appellate court correctly concluded that petitioner created her own isolation and thus cannot claim an easement based on those facts.
• The appellate and trial court additionally found lack of proof of proper indemnity; petitioner’s prayer for the court to compel sale to petitioner did not satisfy the indemnity requirement necessary to create a legal easement.
• Even if equity could be considered, it cannot override statutory law; pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa-tao are not substitutes for statutory requirements for easements of right of way.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Requisites for a legal easement of right of way under Articles 649-650 Civil Code.
• The Supreme Court generally defers to factual findings of the Court of Appeals upholding trial court, with limited exceptions.
• Equity cannot override statutory law; Filipino values cannot create legal rights that the Civil Code does not grant.

---

Disposition

• The petition is DENIED.
• The Decision dated April 30, 1992, of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
• Costs are taxed against petitioner Pacita David-Chan.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• The decision was issued with the majority opinion concurred by Justice Narvasa (Chief Justice), Justice Davide Jr., Justice Melo, and Justice Francisco (i.e., no separate dissent). No separate concurring or dissenting opinions are indicated beyond the joined opinion.

---

Significance / Notes

• Reaffirms that easement of right of way requires strict compliance with Articles 649-650 and that a claimant cannot derive an easement from self-imposed isolation or from lack of evidence of proper indemnity.
• Emphasizes that equity cannot override statutory provisions in property rights disputes.
• Demonstrates the binding effect of factual findings by the Court of Appeals when affirmed by the trial court, with limited exceptions for review.