INCARNACION V.

COURT OF APPEALS-
Easement of Right of Way

An easement of right of way exists as a matter of law when a private property has no access to a public
road and the needs of such property determines the width of the easement which requires payment of
indemnity which consists of the value of the land and the amount of the damages caused.

FACTS:
Tomas Encarnacion is the owner of the dominant estate which is bounded on the north by the servient
estates of Eusebio de Sagun and Mamerto Masigno, on the south by a dried river and the Taal Lake. The
servient estate is bounded on the north by the National Highway.

Prior to 1960, persons going to the national highway would just cross the servient estate at no particular
point. In 1960, Sagun and Masigno enclosed their lands with a fence but provided a roadpath 25 meters
long and about 1 meter in width. At this time, Encarnacion started his plant nursery business on his land.
When his business flourished, it became more difficult to transfer the plants and garden soil through the
use of a pushcart so Encarnacion bought an owner-type jeep for transporting the plants. However, the
jeep could not pass through the roadpath so he approached Sagun and Masigno asking them if they
would sell to him 1 meters of their property to add to the existing roadpath but the 2 refused the offer.

Encarnacion then instituted an action before the RTC to seek the issuance of a writ of easement of a right
of way over an additional width of at least 2 meters. The RTC dismissed the complaint for there is another
outlet, which is through the dried river bed. This was affirmed by the CA thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Encarnacion is entitled to an widening of an already existing easement of right-of-way

RULING: YES
Encarnacion has sufficiently established his claim. Generally, a right of way may be demanded: (1) when
there is absolutely no access to a public highway, and (2) when, even if there is one, it is difficult or
dangerous to use or is grossly insufficient. In the case at bar, although there is a dried river bed, t it
traversed by a semi-concrete bridge and there is no egress or ingress from the highway. For the jeep to
reach the level of the highway, it must literally jump 4-5 meters up. And during rainy season, it is
impassable due to the floods. When a private property has no access to a public road, it has the right of
easement over adjacent servient estates as a matter of law. With the non-availability of the dried river bed
as an alternative route, the servient estates should accommodate the needs of the dominant estate. Art.
651 provides that the width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs
of the dominant estate To grant the additional easement of right of way of 1 meters, Encarnacion
must indemnify Sagun and Masigno the value of the land occupied plus amount of the damages caused
until his offer to buy the land is considered.

VALDERRAMA V. THE NORTH NEGROS SUGAR
CO., INC.- Easement Right of Way

What is prohibited by Art. 543 is that in extending the line or repairing or using the same, a larger area of
land is occupied or excavations or materials deposited are outside the area occupied not by causing
wagons to pass just because of a change of ownership of the objects being transported.

FACTS:
Several hacienda owners in Manapla, Occidental Negros, entered into a milling contract with Miguel
Osorio wherein the latter would build a sugar central of a minimum capacity of 300 tons for the milling and
grinding of all the sugar cane to be grown by the hacienda owners who in turn would furnish the central
with all the cane they might produce in their estates for 30 years from the execution of the contract. Later
on, Osorios rights and interests were acquired by the North Negros Sugar Co., Inc.
2 years after, the current petitioners, Catalino Valderrama, Emilio Rodriguez, Santos Urra et. al, made
other milling contracts identical to the first one with the North Negros Sugar, Co., Inc. The hacienda
owners, however, could not furnish the central sufficient cane for milling as required by its capacity, so the
North Negros made other milling contracts with the various hacienda owners of Cadiz, Occidental Negros.
This prompted Valderrama et. al to each file a complaint against North Negros.

The CFI entered 1 single judgment for all of them, ruling in Valderrama et. als favor finding that North
Negros had no right to pass through the lands of the hacienda owners for the transportation of sugar cane
not grown from their lands. Thus the appeal to the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the easement of way established was restricted to transporting only sugar cane from the
hacienda owners lands

HELD: NO
(the SC also made 1 judgment for all the 3 cases)
The contract entered into by each of the hacienda owners contained a clause that granted the North
Negros an easement of way 7 meters wide for the period of 50 years upon their properties for the
construction of a railroad. The owners allege ambiguity since it could permit the transportation of sugar
cane which they did not produce which is contrary to their intent but the SC held that it is clear that the
easement was established for the benefit of all producers and of the corporation as it is the intent of the
milling contract.

Since the easement is a voluntary, apparent, continuous easement of way in favor of the corporation, it is
contrary to the nature of the contract that it is only limited to canes produced by the servient estates since
it is a well settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership and not by reason of
easement. The owners also cannot limit its use for there is nothing in the contract prohibiting the central
from obtaining other sources.

Transporting cane from Cadiz also does not make it more burdensome since what is prohibited in Art.
543 of the CC is that in extending the road or in repairing it, it should occupy a greater area or deposit
excavations outside the granted 7 meters. This does not happen in this case when the North Negros
transports sugar cane from Cadiz, crossing the servient estates, since it continues to occupy the same
area and the encumbrance is still the same regardless of the number of times it passes through the
estates.

Also the period of the easement is longer than the period of the milling contracts, so even if the owners no
longer desire to furnish the central canes for milling, the North Negros still has the right to the easement
for the remaining period so the contention that it should be limited to the canes produced by the owners
has no basis.