FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236212. April 4, 2018.]
SPOUSES PABLO AND MYRNA DE LEON, SUBSTITUTED BY DANIEL P. DE LEON, petitioners,vs. ARSENIO CESISTA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows: DHIcET
"G.R. No. 236212 — SPOUSES PABLO AND MYRNA DE LEON, SUBSTITUTED BY DANIEL P. DE LEON, Petitioners, v. ARSENIO CESISTA, Respondent. — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The Court further resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated October 28, 2016 and Resolution dated November 14, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03921 for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution and to include a verified statement as to the dates of receipt of the assailed Decision and of the filing of the motion for reconsideration of the same.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that a complaint for easement of right of way is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
In the case of Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, 1 the Court, in finding that an expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation, held:
It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of an expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. HcDSaT
xxx xxx xxx
To emphasize, the question in the present suit is whether the government may expropriate private property under the given set of circumstances. The government does not dispute respondents' title to or possession of the same. Indeed, it is not a question of who has a better title or right, for the government does not even claim that it has a title to the property. It merely asserts its inherent sovereign power to "appropriate and control individual property for the public benefit, as the public necessity, convenience or welfare may demand." 2
Analogous to an expropriation suit, the primary consideration in a suit for an easement of right of way is not the recovery of title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. The primary consideration in a right of way suit is whether the requisites of the compulsory easement of a right of way have been complied with, namely: (1) that the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) after the payment of proper indemnity; (3) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and (4) that the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate. 3
Like in an expropriation suit, the value of the servient estate is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty-bound to determine the proper indemnity to be paid by the owner of the dominant estate. This, however, is merely incidental to the main cause of action in the right of way suit, and said amount is determined only after the court is satisfied that the requisites for an easement of right of way exist. The person filing a right of way suit, like the government in an expropriation suit, is not claiming the value of indemnity and is, in fact, the one who will be adjudged to pay the same.
The question in a right of way suit is whether the easement should be granted under the given set of circumstances. The owner of the dominant estate does not dispute the title to or possession of the owner of the servient estate. Indeed, it is not a question of who has a better title or right, for the owner of the dominant estate does not even claim that he/she has a title to the servient estate. He/she merely asserts his/her right under Article 649 of the Civil Code, which is essential to his/her right to enjoy the thing owned by him/her.
On the second issue of whether the access sought is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, the same is a factual issue which this Court, not being a trier of facts, shall not pass upon. It is settled that questions of facts are beyond the pale of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as a petition for review may only raise questions of law. Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court. 4 ASTcaE
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 389 Phil. 466 (2000).
2.Id. at 472-473.
3.Francisco v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 258 Phil. 324, 330 (1989).
4.Republic v. Tan, 676 Phil. 337, 351 (2011).