This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court explained in Dichoso, Jr. v. Marcos[61] that the convenience of the dominant estate's owner is not the basis for granting an easement of right of way, especially if the owner's needs may be satisfied without imposing the easement.[62] Thus: Mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement. Even in the face of necessity, if it can be satisfied without imposing the easement, the same should not be imposed. | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The outlet referred to in the Ocular Inspection Report may be longer and more inconvenient to petitioner because she will have to traverse other properties and construct a bridge over the irrigation canal before she can reach the road. However, these reasons will not justify the imposition of an easement on respondents' property because her convenience is not the gauge in determining whether to impose an easement of right of way over another's property.[65] | |||||