SIMEON FLORO , vs. ORLANDO A. LLENADO (Deceased), substituted by his wife WENIFREDA T. LLENADO, in her own behalf as Administratrix of the Estate of Orlando A. Llenado and as Legal Guardian of Minors Ma. Bexina, Avelino and Antonio, all surnamed Llenado, and the COURT OF APPEALS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 75723
- Promulgated: 1995-06-02
Doctrine
In Rule 45 petitions the Court ordinarily reviews errors of law by the CA; findings of fact are conclusive except in exceptional circumstances (manifestly mistaken inference, grave abuse, speculation, etc.).
A mere voluntary, temporary permission to pass without compensation, not perfected into a contract, does not establish a voluntary easement of right of way.
Justice and equity may require compensation for damage caused by use of another's property and indemnity for its use, with temperate damages awarded under Articles 2224–2225 of the Civil Code when no specific rule applies.
Facts
Floro owns Floro Park Subdivision with ingress/egress to MacArthur Highway via Road Lot 4 and the PNR crossing.
In February 1983 Floro allegedly granted verbal, uncompensated permission to the Llenados to pass through his subdivision; no formal easement contract was perfected.
Road Lots 4 and 5 were used by heavy equipment between March 1983 and 7 April 1983 and were damaged; roads were later barricaded by defendant.
Procedurally, a writ of partial execution pending appeal ordering removal of obstructions was issued; the Court later required comments and a restraining order was obtained.
Issues
Whether a valid contract of easement of right of way exists when the owner voluntarily allows an adjacent owner passage through his property for a limited time without compensation.
Whether an owner/developer can demand a compulsory easement of right of way over existing roads of an adjacent subdivision instead of constructing the access road shown in his approved subdivision plan.
Ruling
The Court found no voluntary easement of right of way had been established in favor of the Llenados and proceeded to consider compulsory easement claims.
The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside; the trial court's decision, as modified, is reinstated: the complaint is dismissed for lack of merit, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction dissolved/lifted, and plaintiff ordered to pay damages and compensation (P30,000 actual; P77,500 for use).
The Court affirmed award of P30,000 as actual/compensatory damages, P60,000 as indemnity for use (15 July 1983 to 16 October 1986), and P30,000 attorney's fees; costs against private respondent.