Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs. ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

    Uploaded by

    fely_paraan
    Woodridge School and Miguela Jimenez-Javier own adjacent properties separated by a road constructed by ARB Construction to connect two phases of a subdivision. ARB fenced off the road, cutting off access. Petitioners argued the road was public domain under Article 420. The issue was whether petitioners' offer of P50,000 compensation was sufficient for the right of way. The Court ruled Article 649 applies for legal easements and the indemnity must be based on the value of the land occupied by the easement at the time it was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs. ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

    Uploaded by

    fely_paraan
    82 views1 page
    Woodridge School and Miguela Jimenez-Javier own adjacent properties separated by a road constructed by ARB Construction to connect two phases of a subdivision. ARB fenced off the road, cutting off access. Petitioners argued the road was public domain under Article 420. The issue was whether petitioners' offer of P50,000 compensation was sufficient for the right of way. The Court ruled Article 649 applies for legal easements and the indemnity must be based on the value of the land occupied by the easement at the time it was established.

    Original Title

    WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs. ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Woodridge School and Miguela Jimenez-Javier own adjacent properties separated by a road constructed by ARB Construction to connect two phases of a subdivision. ARB fenced off the road, cutting off access. Petitioners argued the road was public domain under Article 420. The issue was whether petitioners' offer of P50,000 compensation was sufficient for the right of way. The Court ruled Article 649 applies for legal easements and the indemnity must be based on the value of the land occupied by the easement at the time it was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs. ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

    Uploaded by

    fely_paraan
    Woodridge School and Miguela Jimenez-Javier own adjacent properties separated by a road constructed by ARB Construction to connect two phases of a subdivision. ARB fenced off the road, cutting off access. Petitioners argued the road was public domain under Article 420. The issue was whether petitioners' offer of P50,000 compensation was sufficient for the right of way. The Court ruled Article 649 applies for legal easements and the indemnity must be based on the value of the land occupied by the easement at the time it was established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WOODRIDGE SCHOOL, INC. and MIGUELA JIMENEZ-JAVIER, vs.

    ARBCONSTRUCTION CO., INC., G.R. No. 157285, February 16, 2007


    FACTSOFTHECASE
    :Woodridge is the usufructuary of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title(TCT)
    No. T-363902 in the name of spouses Ernesto T. Matugas and Filomena U. Matugas. Itscopetitioner, Miguela JimenezJavier, is the registered owner of the adjacent lot under TCT No.T330688. On the other hand, ARB is the owner and developer of Soldiers Hills Subdivision
    inB a c o o r , C a v i t e , w h i c h i s c o m p o s e d o f f o u r p h a s e s . P h a s e I o f t h e
    s u b d i v i s i o n w a s a l r e a d y accessible from the Marcos Alvarez Avenue. To provide the same
    accessibility to the residents of Phase II of the subdivision, ARB constructed the disputed road to
    link the two phases.As found by the appellate court, petitioners properties sit right in the middle
    of severalestates: Phase I of Soldiers Hills Subdivision in the north, a creek in the
    east and Green ValleySubdivision the farther east, a road within Soldiers Hills
    Subdivision IV which leads to theMarcos Alvarez Avenue in the west and Phase III
    of Soldiers Hills Subdivision in the south. Initially, petitioners offered to pay ARB P50,000
    as indemnity for the use of the road. Adamant,ARB refused the offer and fenced the perimeter of
    the road fronting the properties of petitioners.By doing so, ARB effectively cut off petitioners
    access to and from the public highway.Petitioners argue that the contested road lot is a property
    of public dominion pursuant toArticle 420 of the Civil Code. Specifically, petitioners
    point out that the disputed road lot falls u n d e r t h e c a t e g o r y o t h e r s o f s i m i l a r
    c h a r a c t e r w h i c h i s t h e l a s t c l a u s e o f Ar t i c l e 4 2 0 ( 1 ) . Hence, it is a property of
    public dominion which can be used by the general public without needfor compensation.
    Consequently, it is wrong for ARB to exclude petitioners from using the roadlot or to make them
    pay for the use of the same.Petitioners also assert that their initial offer of P50,000 should be
    sufficient compensationfor the right of way. Further, they should not be held accountable for the
    increase in the value of the property since the delay was attributable to the stubborn refusal of
    ARB to accept their offer.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the offer of P50,000 is a sufficient compensation for the right of way
    RULINGOFTHECOURT:
    In the case of a legal easement, Article 649 of the Civil Code prescribes the parameters bywhich
    the proper indemnity may be fixed. Since the intention of petitioners is to establish
    a permanent passage, the second paragraph of Article 649 of the Civil Code particularly applies:

    You might also like