In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the national highway was a pathway crossing Brando’s property. Andres and others have been using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980.
In 2006, Brand0 fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres’ access to the national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but Brando refused, claiming that there was another available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to the highway. Andres countered that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient to use.
To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian, a geodetic and civil engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates. After the survey, the engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route and will need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of Brando’s property. On the other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the shorter route but would significantly affect the use of Brando’s property.
In light of the engineer’s findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the parties’ right of way dispute. (6%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I will resolve the dispute in favor of Brando by designating Pathway B for the right of way. Under Article 650 of the Civil Code, a right of way must be established at the point least prejudicial to the
Unlock the full Civil Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article 650 of the Civil Code, what criterion takes precedence when determining the location of an easement of right of way?
Under Article 650, the criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate prevails over shortness of distance.
Under Article 649 of the Civil Code, which of the following is a requisite for establishing a compulsory easement of right of way?
Article 649 requires that the dominant estate be isolated without adequate outlet to a public highway.
Why is Pathway B chosen over Pathway A in resolving the right of way dispute between Andres and Brando?
Pathway B is chosen because least prejudice to the servient estate controls over shortest distance.
Does mere inconvenience or a circuitous route justify demanding a right of way that significantly burdens the servient estate?
Choices available with full access.
Who bears the obligation to pay indemnity when a compulsory easement of right of way is established under Article 649?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Easement Requisites
Under Article 649 of the Civil Code, an owner of an estate surrounded by other estates without adequate outlet to a public highway may demand an easement of right of way after paying proper indemnity. The easement requires that the dominant estate be isolated without adequate outlet, that proper indemnity be paid, that the isolation was not due to the dominant owner's own acts, and that the right of way claimed be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
2. Least Prejudicial Rule
Under Article 650 of the Civil Code, the easement of right of way must be established 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 shortest. When the shortest distance causes significant prejudice to the servient estate, the criterion of least prejudice prevails over shortness of distance.
3. Inconvenience Rule
Under established Philippine civil law jurisprudence, mere inconvenience or circuitousness of an alternative route does not entitle the owner of a dominant estate to compel a right of way over a route that severely impairs the servient estate. If an alternative pathway exists or can be established with reasonable repairs, the dominant owner cannot demand a more burdensome path over neighboring property merely because it is shorter or more convenient.