VALDEZ (petitioner) v.

TABISULA (respondent)
J. Carpio Morales July 28, 2008 G.R. No. 175510
Doctrine Easements. An easement is a real right constituted on another’s property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of
which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing so or to allow somebody else to do something on his property
for the benefit of another thing or person. It can be established either by law (legal) or by will of the owners
(voluntary easements).

Statutory Construction. The use of the word shall, which is imperative or mandatory in its ordinary signification,
should be construed as merely permissive where no public benefit or private right requires it to be given an
imperative meaning.

When conferred a legal easement of right of way. (1) Property is surrounded by other immovable and has no
adequate outlet to a public highway, (2) Proper indemnity must be paid, (3) Isolation is not the result of the owner of
the dominate estate’s own acts, (4) The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and
(5) To the extent consistent with the foregoing rule the distance from the dominate estate to a public highway may
be the shortest. The burden of proof lies on the owner of the dominant estate, herein petitioners.
Summary Petitioners bought a 200 sqm parcel of land from respondent’s 380 sqm lot. Not included in the sale, but written in
the deed, is that petitioners will be provided a 2-metre wide road right-of-way. Eventually, the respondents built a
concrete wall on where the petitioners alleged was the place indicated for the right-of-way. The TC ruled in favour of
the respondents, which the CA affirmed, saying that the deed only conveyed ownership of the 200 sqm property, and
the reference to a right of way was not a definite-grant basis of a voluntary easement. The SC upheld this decision of
the lower courts.
Facts  Petitioners purchased from respondents a 200 sqm portion of a 380 sqm parcel of land in La Union through a
Deed of Absolute Sale. The 380 sqm parcel of land was described in the deed as bounded on the North by Lot
No. 25569, on the East by Lot No. 247 and 251 and on the South, by a creek (the others are unnecessary).
 The deed said that for the sum of 70,000 PHP, the respondents will sell, convey, and transfer the 200 sqm,
eastern portion of the abovementioned land, and as right of way, petitioners will be provided a 2 ½ metres
wide road right of way on the western side of their lot (but which is not included in the sale).
 Later, respondents built a concrete wall on the western side of the 200 sqm property, but petitioners,
believing that that was the side intended for the right of way, reported to the barangay for mediation and
conciliation. Respondents failed to attend the conferences to petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific
Performance 6 years after the execution of the deed of sale.
 Petitioners alleged that they purchased the property on the respondents’ assurance that they will be
provided a right of way. Thus they asked for a 2-metre wide easement and to have the concrete wall blocking
their property removed.
 Respondents said: The 2-metre easement should be taken from the western part of the subject property and
not from our property. Also, petitioners own adjacent properties so they really should have no problem
accessing the public roads. Aaand, they could not have agreed to provide an easement on the western side of
their lot because there was a 2-storey house there, built long before the 200 sqm property was sold to
petitioners.
 RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to pay the defendants (herein respondents). The CA
affirmed the decision, granted a counterclaim to the respondents, and held that the deed only conveyed
ownership of the subject property. The reference to an easement is not a definite grant-basis of a voluntary
easement of right of way.
Ratio/Issues
I. W/N the right of way is part of the absolute deed of sale (which was dated January 11, 1993) [NOPE]

(1) An easement, according to Art. 613, is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to a different owner.
(2) Art. 1358 says that any transaction involving the sale or disposition of real property must be in writing.
Petitioners were alleging that they shall be provided a 2-metres wide road right-of-way on the western
side of their lot,, but this was not included in the sale and is thus not a disposition of real property. This
meant that the parties should have to enter into a separate and distinct agreement for that purpose,
the use of the word shall, in this case, was merely permissive. [See Doctrine 2]
(3) And anyway, a document stipulating a voluntary easement has to be recorded in the Registry of
Property in order not to prejudice third parties. Article 708 provides that “The Registry of Property has
for its object the inscription or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and other
rights over immovable property,” while Article 709 reiterates that the titles of ownership which are not
 annotated in the Registry shall not prejudice third persons.
(4) Petitioners are not entitled to an easement of right of way. In order for them to be entitled to such,
they should established that (1) they had no adequate outlet to a public highway [Art. 649] and (2) the
easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. [Art.
650]
(5) It was proven that petitioners family already owned several lots adjacent to the public highway, which
meant they already had a right of way.

Held The CA decision is affirmed, but the part about the counterclaim is reversed and set aside.
Prepared by: Joy Reyes (Property | Aquende)