Locsin vs. Climaco G.R. No.

L-27319 | January 31, 1969 FACTS The Hawaiian-Philippine Company, a sugar central, after the expiration of a contract granting the central a right of way (voluntary) thru the Hacienda San Vicente, claimed that it had a legal easement of right of way and could thus continue passing thru the Hacienda. However, the central was not able to satisfy all the requisites needed for such legal easement. ISSUE Is the Central entitled to claim a COMPULSORY RIGHT OF WAY? RULING No. For failure to meet the requirements of the law. The owner of an estate may claim a compulsory (legal) right of way only after he has established the existence of 4 requisites namely: 1. the estate is surrounded by other immovables, and is without adequate outlet to a public highway; 2. payment of the proper indemnity; 3. the isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts; 4. the right of way claimed is at a 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 shortest. The onus or burden of proof is upon the owner of the dominant estate to show by specific averments in his complaints the existence of the requisites enumerated. Incidentally, the Sugar Limitation Law (Act 4166) as amended, does not grant the Central the right to establish a right of way on the lands of adherent planters. It would appear from its title and declaration of policy that Act 4166 was enacted solely for the purpose of limiting and allocating the production of sugar in the Philippines, as well as regulating the processing and marketing thereof