7/28/2019 Mock Trial Prep

1/2

The burden of proving the existence of the requisites of easement of right of way lies on the owner ofthe dominant estate. In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellants failed to prove that there is no adequateoutlet from their property to a public highway. Convenience of the dominant estate is not a gauge forthe grant of compulsory right of way. The true standard for the grant of the legal right is "adequacy."Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a publichighway, as in this case, even if the outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to

open up another servitude is entirely unjustified. To justify the imposition of a easement of right ofway, there must be real, not ficitious or artificial necessity for it. A right of way is legally demandable,but the owner of the dominant estate is not at liberty to impose one based on arbitrary choice. Art.650 of the Civil Code provides for the criteria in the establishment of such easement but it has beensettled that the criteria of "least prejudicial" prevails over shortest distance. Each case must beweighed according to its individual merits and judged according to the sound discreation of the court(Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80511, 193 SCRA 333 [1991]).

To be entitled to a compulsory easement of right of way, the preconditions provided under Arts. 649and 650 of the Civil Code must be established. These are: (1) that the dominant estate issurrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) that properindemnity has been paid; (3) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominantestate; (4) that the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, in sofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway maybe the shortest. 9 The burden of proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of thedominant estate. 10

Sec. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicatecertificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oathshall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province orcity where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost ordestroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or forthe registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the facts of such loss or destruction may befiled by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and duehearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the factthat it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith andcredit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of thisdecree. 2 (Emphasis added)

11. That in support for the reconstitution of [OCT] No. 3980, the following documents whichmay constitute as source or basis for the purpose are herewith submitted:

(a) S[E]PIA PLAN with Blue Prints x x x;

(b) Certified technical description of Lot 18, Cad. 210 x x x;

(c) Certification by LRA as to the non-availability of a copy of DECREE NO. 650254 xx x[.]4

During the trial, the testimony of co-respondent Evelyn Fontanilla- Gozum was offered in order toprove the above-mentioned allegations in the petition. In her testimony, she declared that she is thedaughter of the late Pedro Fontanilla and co-respondent Concepcion Lorenzo who, during theirmarriage, acquired a parcel of land covered and embraced by OCT No. 3890 from her grandmother

Antonia Pascua as evidenced by a Deed of Sale. She also averred that the owners duplicate of the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt4

7/28/2019 Mock Trial Prep

2/2

said Torrens certificate of title was later discovered to have been eaten by termites and that theoriginal copy of the said Torrens certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds of Isabela wascertified to be burned and lost beyond recovery when the office was razed by fire of unknown originon December 4, 1976 as certified to by the Register of Deeds. Since both the original copy on fileand the owners duplicate copy are non-existent, she and her co-heirs, who are also co-respondentsin this case, instituted the petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificate of title.5

Furthermore, in a more recent case, this Court enumerated what should be shown before an order

for reconstitution can validly issue, namely: (a) that the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed;

(b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of

the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property

or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or

destroyed; and (e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the

same and those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of title

and the date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of a petition for

reconstitution.

Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's

duplicate

certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the

Register of Deeds

of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate

certificate is lost or

destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for

the registration of

any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered

owner or other

person in interest and registered.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_172338_2012.html#fnt5