PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY DOES NOT MEAN OWNING RIGHT OF WAY

Dear PAO,

I filed a case in court against my neighbor for the latter to grant me right of way considering that I have
no adequate outlet to the public highway. The court decided in my favor, but it ordered me to
compensate my neighbor as indemnity for the use of my neighbor’s affected lot. If I pay the value of
indemnity for the affected lot, would this mean that I am already the owner of the affected lot?

Respectfully,

Doris

Dear Doris,

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Quimen vs Court of Appeals (GR 112331, May 29, 1996,
Ponente: Associate Justice Josue Bellosillo) can enlighten you in your concern. The decision states:

“A right of way in particular is a privilege constituted by covenant or granted by law to a person or class
of persons to pass over another’s property when his tenement is surrounded by realties belonging to
others without an adequate outlet to the public highway. The owner of the dominant estate can
demand a right of way through the servient estate provided he indemnifies the owner thereof for the
beneficial use of his property.”

“To be entitled to a legal easement of right of way,” the Supreme Court, in the case of Woodridge
School vs ARB Construction Co. Inc. (GR 157285, February 16, 2007, Ponente: Chief Justice Renato
Corona), explained that “the following requisites must concur: (1) the dominant estate is surrounded by
other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3)
the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate and (4) the right of way
claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.”

However, paying for the value of the indemnity for the affected lot does not mean that ownership over
the lot will be transferred to you, because the payment of indemnity is merely for the use of the right of
way. The Supreme Court, in the case of de Guzman vs. Filinvest Development Corp. (GR 191710, January
14, 2015, Ponente: Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo), explained:

“In easement of right of way, there is no alienation of the land occupied.

Petitioners argue that it is unfair to require them to pay the value of the affected road lots since the
same is tantamount to buying the property without them being issued titles and not having the right to
exercise dominion over it. The argument is untenable. Payment of the value of the land for permanent
use of the easement does not mean an alienation of the land occupied. In fact under the law and unlike
in purchase of a property, should the right of way no longer be necessary because the owner of the
dominant estate has joined it to another abutting on a public highway, and the servient estate demands
that the easement be extinguished, the value of the property received by the servient estate by way of
indemnity shall be returned in full to the dominant estate. This only reinforces the concept that the
payment of indemnity is merely for the use of the right of way and not for its alienation.”