Woodridge School, Inc. vs. ARB Construction Co., Inc., G.R. No.
157285, February 16,
2007
Facts:
Petitioner Woodridge School, Inc. is the usufructuary of a parcel of land owned by Sps. Matugas.
On the other hand, ARB is the owner and developer of Soldier Hills Subdivision in Baccor,
Cavite.
Petitioner offered P50,000.00 as indemnity for the use of the road covered by the subdivision
which is their only access to Marcos Alvarez Avenue. However, ARB refused the offer and built
perimeter fence instead to cut the petitioner access to and from public highway.
Petitioner filed a complaint to the RTC of Imus, Cavite to enjoin ARB from depriving them the
use of the subdivision road and seek a compulsory right of way after payment of proper
indemnity.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner without the need for the payment of
indemnity for the use of the road of the subdivision.
Upon appeal to the CA, the CA reversed the decision and instead ruled that ARB is entitled to
P500,000.00 as indemnity for the use of the subject property.
Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the SC where it argued that the contested
road lot is a property of public dominion pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Code. Specifically,
petitioners point out that the disputed road lot falls under the category others of similar character
which is the last clause of Article 420 (1). Hence, it is a property of public dominion which can
be used by the general public without need for compensation. Consequently, it is wrong for ARB
to exclude petitioners from using the road lot or to make them pay for the use of the same.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the use of the subdivision roads by the general public strip it of
private character.
2. Whether or not ARB Construction is entitled to indemnity.
Ruling:
1. No.
In the case of Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, SC held that the road lots in a private
subdivision are private property, hence, the local government should first acquire them by
donation, purchase, or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a public road Otherwise, they
remain to be private properties of the owner-developer.
The use of the subdivision roads by the general public does not strip it of its private
character. The road is not converted into public property by mere tolerance of the subdivision
owner of the public passage through it. To repeat, the local government should first acquire them
by donation, purchase, or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a public road.
2. Yes.
In the case of a legal easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code prescribes the parameters
by which the proper indemnity may be fixed. Since the intention of petitioners is to establish a
permanent passage pursuant to Article 649 of the Civil Code, to wit:
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.xxx
The Civil Code categorically provides for the measure by which the proper indemnity
may be computed: value of the land occupied plus the amount of the damage caused to the
servient estate. Settled is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear, the
function of the courts is simple application.
Having settled the legal issues, SC however order the remand of the case to the trial court
for reception of evidence and determination of the limits of the property to be covered by
the easement, the proper indemnity to be paid and the respective contributions of petitioners.
