SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242436. December 5, 2018.]
ELIZABETH P. PALCE, petitioner,vs. LILY F. TY-TICAO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND JUDY C. TICAO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 December 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242436 (Elizabeth P. Palce v. Lily F. Ty-Ticao, joined by her husband Judy C. Ticao)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 23, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 30, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 05896 for failure of petitioner Elizabeth P. Palce (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the September 14, 2015 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6 (RTC) which declared the existence of a legal or compulsory easement on the northern portion of petitioner's lot, known as "Lot No. 909, Cad. No. 220," covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30298. 5
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents Spouses Lily F. Ty-Ticao and Judy C. Ticao (respondents) are entitled to the declaration of a legal or compulsory easement on petitioner's property, particularly because: (a) respondents' property is isolated from the public highway as shown by the evidence presented, as well as the RTC's ocular inspection; 6 and (b) it is least prejudicial to establish the easement through petitioner's lot, considering that the other servient estate, Roberto Ty's property, albeit shorter in distance, cannot accommodate an easement of at least three (3) meters in width, and would require demolishing improvements already existing on the property prior to this dispute. 7 As the CA noted, the test to determine which of the neighboring estates should bear the right of way is not necessarily the nearest, but that which is the least prejudiced or will bear the least damage, which, in this case, is the open space in petitioner's property. 8 Settled is the rule that factual findings of lower courts are accorded respect and are beyond the review of this Court, save for exceptional circumstances, 9 which do not obtain in this case.
Moreover, there is no basis in awarding damages to petitioner because her claim is anchored on the supposed illegality of respondents' case for easement but, as the lower courts have ruled, respondents are indeed entitled to the declaration of easement on petitioner's property. 10 Nevertheless, as held by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, petitioners are entitled to the payment of the market value of the total area covered by the declared easement of right of way. 11
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 36-61.
2.Id. at 155-170. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3.Id. at 171-176. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
4.Id. at 87-95. Penned by Presiding Judge Alphinor C. Serrano.
5.Id. at 69-71, including dorsal portions. See also id. at 156.
6. See id. at 166.
7. See id. at 167-168.
8. See id. at 169-170.
9. See Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, G.R. Nos. 208450 and 208497, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 457, 499.
10. See rollo, p. 94.
11. See id. at 168.