SPS.

ELIZABETH DE LA CRUZ and ALFREDO DE LA CRUZ

versus
OLGA RAMISCAL
G.R. No. 137882 | 2005-02-04

Facts
Spouses De La Cruz are occupants at the back of Ramiscal’s Property. The property
being occupied by the Spouses is registered under the name of Concepcion de la Peña.
The subject strip of land owned by Ramsical is being used by the Spouses as a
pathway to and from 18th Avenue. Spouses enclosed the same with a gate, a fence,
and a roof. Upon discovery, Ramiscal sought for its demolition.

Issue
Whether or not the Spouses have acquired a voluntary right of way or a legal easement
of right of way.

Held

NO. The spouses are neither entitled to a voluntary right of way nor to a legal easement
of right of way.

As to voluntary right of way, the Spouses failed to show by competent evidence other
than their bare claim that they entered into an agreement with Ramiscal to use the
pathway to 18th Avenue. As to legal easement of right of way, the following requisites
must be established:

1. It is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway;

2. Payment of proper indemnity;
3. The isolation is not the result of the proprietor’s own acts;
4. The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and
5. The distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.

In a legal easement of right of way, it is the OWNER, or any person who by virtue of a
real right may cultivate or use any immovable surrounded by other immovable
pertaining to other persons, who is ENTITLED to demand a right of way through the
neighboring estates. The Spouses fell short of proving that they are the owners of the
supposed dominant estate. Nor were they able to prove that they possess a real right to
use such property.