WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC., AND MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, PETITIONERS, VS. ARB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

Woodridge School versus ARB Construction

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Woodridge School, Incorporated and Miguela Jimenez-Javier against ARB Construction Company, Incorporated. The petitioners are the usufructuary and the registered owner, respectively, of adjoining parcels of land that have no adequate outlet to a public highway except a road lot inside a private subdivision owned and developed by ARB. The petitioners sued to restrain ARB from blocking their passage and to compel a right of way upon payment of indemnity. The case matters because it settles two questions every Bar candidate must be able to answer: whether the roads of a private subdivision are property of public dominion, and how the indemnity for a legal easement of right of way is measured.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, seeking to enjoin ARB from depriving them of the use of the disputed subdivision road and to compel a right of way after payment of proper indemnity. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. It held that the road lot had been withdrawn from the commerce of men and that ownership had automatically vested in the government upon approval of the subdivision plan, so ARB could not prevent the petitioners from using it. ARB appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court. It held that the White Plains case did not apply, found that a compulsory right of way existed in favor of the petitioners, and awarded 500,000 pesos to ARB as reasonable indemnity for the use of the road lot. On the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the appellate court justified the award as indemnity for use and not for alienation, based on equitable considerations. Unsatisfied, the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, insisting that ARB is not entitled to any indemnity at all.

Facts

Woodridge School is the usufructuary of a parcel of land registered in the name of the spouses Matugas. Its co-petitioner, Miguela Jimenez-Javier, owns the adjacent lot. ARB is the owner and developer of Soldiers Hills Subdivision in Bacoor, Cavite, composed of four phases. To connect Phase Two of the subdivision to Marcos Alvarez Avenue, ARB constructed the disputed road lot.

The petitioners' properties sit in the middle of several estates. To the north is Phase One of the subdivision, to the east a creek and farther east Green Valley Subdivision, to the west a road within Soldiers Hills Subdivision Four leading to Marcos Alvarez Avenue, and to the south Phase Three. The petitioners initially offered to pay ARB 50,000 pesos as indemnity for the use of the road. ARB refused and fenced the perimeter of the road fronting the petitioners' properties, effectively cutting off their access to and from the public highway.

After efforts at amicable settlement failed, the petitioners filed the complaint. The trial court ruled that the road belonged to the government and ordered ARB to cease and desist from preventing the petitioners from using it. The Court of Appeals reversed, found a compulsory right of way, and awarded 500,000 pesos as indemnity for the use of the road lot. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the road lot in the private subdivision is property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code, such that the petitioners may use it without paying any indemnity.
• Whether or not a legal easement of right of way exists in favor of the petitioners over the road lot of ARB.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in fixing the indemnity at 500,000 pesos as compensation for the use of the road lot.

Applicable Provisions

Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion:

Article 420. The following things are property of public dominion: (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth.

The petitioners invoke this provision to argue that the subdivision road is public property, but the Court holds that road lots in a private subdivision remain private until acquired by the government.

Section 2 of Presidential Decree Number 1216 governs the transfer of subdivision roads to the local government:

Upon their completion as certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local governments to accept them provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds may be donated to the Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of the city or municipality concerned.

This provision shows that the transfer of ownership is not automatic but requires a positive act of donation by the owner-developer.

Article 649 of the Civil Code fixes the measure of the indemnity for a legal easement of right of way:

Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.

This is the statutory yardstick the Court applies in place of the appellate court's equitable award.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rules that the road lot is not property of public dominion. Road lots in a private subdivision are private property, and the local government should first acquire them by donation, purchase, or expropriation if they are to be used as a public road. The mere use of the subdivision roads by the general public does not strip them of their private character; tolerance by the owner does not convert the road into public property. The trial court also erred in relying on Section 2 of Presidential Decree Number 1216, because the law is clear that the transfer of ownership from the subdivision owner-developer to the local government is not automatic but requires a positive act from the owner-developer. Since no donation has been made and the title remains registered in the name of ARB, the disputed property remains private.

On the second issue, the Court rules that a legal easement of right of way exists in favor of the petitioners. The requisites are: first, the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; second, payment of proper indemnity; third, the isolation was not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and fourth, the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate. The lower courts found that the petitioners' properties are enclosed by other estates without any adequate access to a public highway except the subject road lot. The alternative route toward the east across a creek is not adequate, because it becomes marshy when the creek overflows during the rainy season and would endanger the students of the proposed school. The only requisite left unsatisfied is the payment of proper indemnity.

On the third issue, the Court rules that the Court of Appeals erred in arbitrarily awarding 500,000 pesos as indemnity for the use of the road lot. Since the intention of the petitioners is to establish a permanent passage, the second paragraph of Article 649 of the Civil Code applies, and the indemnity must consist of the value of the land occupied plus the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. The Court reiterates the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, the function of the courts is simple application. To award indemnity using factors different from those given by the law is a complete disregard of clear statutory provisions and is evidently arbitrary. The Court cannot depart from the parameters laid down by the Civil Code.

Doctrine

Road lots in a private subdivision are private property of the owner-developer. The local government must first acquire them by donation, purchase, or expropriation before they become public roads. Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree Number 1216, the transfer of ownership is not automatic; until the roads are donated, ownership remains with the owner-developer. The use of subdivision roads by the general public, by mere tolerance of the owner, does not convert them into property of public dominion under Article 420 of the Civil Code.

A legal or compulsory easement of right of way requires the concurrence of four requisites: the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; payment of proper indemnity; the isolation was not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

Where the easement is established for a permanent passage, the indemnity is measured by Article 649 of the Civil Code: the value of the land occupied plus the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. The courts cannot substitute equitable considerations for this statutory measure. The fact that the road lot is used by the general public may be taken into account to mitigate the damage to the servient estate, since the wear and tear is not entirely attributable to the dominant estate.

Disposition

The petition is partially granted. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are annulled and set aside insofar as the petitioners are ordered to pay an indemnity of 500,000 pesos, and the case is remanded to the trial court for reception of evidence and determination of the limits of the property covered by the easement, the proper indemnity to be paid, and the respective contributions of the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: subdivision roads remain private until donated, purchased, or expropriated, and the indemnity for a permanent right of way is the value of the land occupied plus the damage to the servient estate. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between property of public dominion and private subdivision roads, and the correct measure of indemnity under Article 649 of the Civil Code.