RAMOS, Sr. vs GATCHALIAN REALTY, INC.

FACTS:

Ramos acquired a lot (Lot 4133G-11)from Sobrina Rodriguez Lombos Subdivision. Two road lots
touch Ramos property namely, Lot 4133G-12 which is a proposed road in the Lombos Subdivision and
Lot 4135 known as Palanyag Road, commonly known as Gatchalian Road. Respondent Asprec owns Lot
4135. Gatchalian Realty was granted the road right of way and drainage along Lot 4135 to service the
Gatchalian and Asprec subdivisions.

Ramos filed a complaint for an easement of a right of way alleging that during the construction
of his house Gatchalian Realty built a 7-8 feet high wall, blocking his entrance and exit to Gatchalian
Road, which is the nearest, most convenient and adequate road to public highway. Gatchalian argued
that the Palanyag road is a private street intended for the sole and exclusive use of its residents.
Furthter, Gatchalian argued that the grant of right of way is not necessary because there was an existing
road (Lot 4133G-12) towards the Sucat Road. Ramos answered that the road of right of wat does not
exist because it remained as a proposed road

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ramos has successfully shown all the requisites necessary for the grant of an
easement of a right of way in his favor are present

RULE:

Article 649 and 650 of the Civil Code. In summary of the provisions, these provides for requisites
for easements: (Bacolod Murcia Milling Company, Inc. vs Capitol Subdivision

1. That it is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway
(Art. 649, par. 1);
2. After payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, p. 1, end);
3. That the isolation was not due to the Central's own acts (Art. 649, last par.); and
4. That the right of way claimed is 'at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and
insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public
highway may be the shortest/ (Art. 650).

CONCLUSION:

Ramos failed to prove the non-existence of an adequate outlet to the Sucat Road except
through the Gatchalian Avenue. The records shows that a road of right of way was provided by
the Lombos Subdivsion, which is the Lot 4133G-12. The inconvenience it caused to Ramos
because it is still undeveloped is not sufficient to establish that there was no adequate outlet to
a public highway. Ramos should have first demanded improvement and maintenance from
Sobrina Rodriguez Lombos Subdivision, where he acquired the lot, and not from Gathcalian
 Realty. Also, it is not sufficient to establish the first requisite just because the Gatchalian Avenue
is the most convenient and adequate way to the public highway.

Considering that Ramos failed to prove the existence of first requisite, the Supreme Court need
not further discuss the subsequent requisites. Therefore, Ramos cannot be granted an easement
of right of way.