ASG Law

Tag: Easement of Right-of-Way

  • Right of Way vs. Ownership: Acquisitive Prescription and Easements

    In a dispute over land use, the Supreme Court ruled that continuous possession of property, initially granted as a right of way, does not automatically convert to ownership through acquisitive prescription. This means that even if a party has used a piece of land for an extended period, if the original use was based on an easement or right of way, they cannot claim ownership unless they demonstrate explicit, adverse actions against the true owner within the period prescribed by law. This decision reinforces the importance of clearly establishing property rights and the limitations of merely possessing land without a clear title.

    Railroad Tracks and Rights: Can Usage Turn to Ownership?

    The case of Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Magdaleno Valdez Sr. revolved around a strip of land in Medellin, Cebu, used by Bomedco for its railroad tracks since 1929. The heirs of Magdaleno Valdez Sr., who owned the surrounding property, claimed Bomedco was unlawfully occupying the land, seeking compensation or its return. Bomedco argued it had acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription, citing its continuous possession for over 50 years. The central legal question was whether Bomedco’s long-term use of the land, initially under a right of way, had ripened into full ownership.

    The Supreme Court analyzed the concept of acquisitive prescription, emphasizing that mere possession is insufficient to claim ownership. For possession to lead to ownership, it must be adverse, meaning the possessor must act as the owner and demonstrate hostility towards the true owner’s title. In this case, the Court found that Bomedco’s initial possession was based on an easement of right of way granted by the previous landowner, Feliciana Santillan. This easement allowed Bomedco to use the land for its railroad tracks, but it did not transfer ownership.

    The Court highlighted Bomedco’s own tax declarations, which, until 1963, described the property as a “central railroad right of way.” This acknowledgment contradicted Bomedco’s claim of ownership, as an easement implies that the property belongs to another. An easement is a real right that allows one party to use the property of another for a specific purpose. It does not grant title to the land itself. Bomedco could not claim ownership based on adverse possession until it demonstrated a clear act of hostility towards the Valdez heirs’ ownership.

    Bomedco argued that even if its initial possession was based on an easement, its possession became adverse when the easement expired in the late 1950s. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the expiration of the easement alone did not transform Bomedco’s possession into adverse possession. There had to be a manifest act of denying the owner’s title, which was not proven. Absent such action, the Court presumed that Bomedco’s possession continued under the same permissive character, either through the original easement or through the tolerance of the Valdez heirs.

    The Court noted that the only act indicating a claim adverse to the heirs was Bomedco’s registration of the property in its name during the cadastral survey of Medellin in 1965. From 1965 until 1989, when the heirs filed their complaint, only 24 years had passed, falling short of the 30-year period required for extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137 of the Civil Code. The Court stated that petitioner never acquired ownership of the subject land.

    Furthermore, the Court dismissed Bomedco’s defense of laches, which requires an unreasonable delay in asserting a right. The Court found that the Valdez heirs acted promptly upon discovering Bomedco’s claim in 1989, immediately demanding an explanation and filing a complaint when their demands were ignored. The Court rejected the claim that the heirs neglected their duty to assert their right over their land.

    Finally, the Court addressed the issue of whether Bomedco had acquired an easement of right of way by prescription under Article 620 of the Civil Code. It stated that continuous and apparent easements can be acquired through prescription. However, the Court clarified that the easement of right of way is discontinuous because it is exercised only when someone passes over the land. As a discontinuous easement, it can only be acquired by title, not by prescription. As discontinuous easements may be acquired only by title and because Bomedco never acquired any title over the land in question, Bomedco was held to be unlawfully occupying and using the subject strip of land as a railroad right of way without valid title.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordering Bomedco to vacate the land, remove its railway tracks, and return possession to the Valdez heirs. The court further upheld the award of attorney’s fees to the heirs, considering Bomedco’s bad faith in refusing their lawful claims.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The central issue was whether Bomedco acquired ownership of the land through acquisitive prescription or an easement of right of way through long-term use. The Heirs of Valdez sought compensation or the land’s return, while Bomedco claimed ownership based on continuous possession.
    What is acquisitive prescription? Acquisitive prescription is a legal process by which a person can acquire ownership of property by possessing it for a certain period of time. For the process to take effect, the possession must be adverse, open, continuous, and under a claim of ownership.
    What is an easement of right of way? An easement of right of way grants a person the right to pass through another person’s property for a specific purpose, like accessing a road. An easement is a real right but doesn’t transfer ownership of the land, so the property owner retains title but must allow the easement holder to use the land for its designated purpose.
    What did the court say about Bomedco’s tax declarations? The court noted that, until 1963, Bomedco described the property as a “central railroad right of way” in its tax declarations. Because of the nature of its claims and the fact that a person cannot have an easement on their own land, the claim was seen as contradictory.
    Why was Bomedco’s claim of laches rejected? The defense of laches was rejected because the Valdez heirs acted promptly upon discovering Bomedco’s claim to the property. When petitioner ignored them, they instituted their complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City on June 8, 1989.
    What is the difference between a continuous and a discontinuous easement? A continuous easement can be used incessantly without human intervention, like a drainage easement, while a discontinuous easement requires human action for its exercise, like a right of way. The nature of the action determines the definition, regardless of any existing physical signs.
    How can a discontinuous easement be acquired? Under Article 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by title. This means that ownership over land can only be established by law, donation, testamentary succession or contract, not by prescription.
    What were the implications of the court’s decision? The court’s decision underscored that the unauthorized use of someone else’s property is subject to accountability under the law. The Court therefore upheld the award of attorney’s fees to the heirs, considering Bomedco’s bad faith in refusing their lawful claims.

    This case emphasizes the importance of documenting property rights and understanding the limits of usage versus ownership. It clarifies that long-term possession alone is not enough to claim ownership; clear and adverse actions against the true owner are necessary. This case underscores the critical differences between an easement of right of way and land ownership, which ensures greater transparency and accountability in real estate dealings.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Magdaleno Valdez Sr., G.R. No. 124699, July 31, 2003

  • Hidden Easements and Your Property Rights: Understanding Rights of Way in the Philippines

    Easement Rights Trump Clean Titles: Why Due Diligence is Key When Buying Property in the Philippines

    TLDR: This case clarifies that even if an easement of right of way isn’t explicitly annotated on a property’s Torrens Title, it can still be legally binding on subsequent owners, especially if it’s considered a legal or necessary easement. Buyers beware: a ‘clean’ title doesn’t always reveal the full picture of property encumbrances. Due diligence beyond title verification is crucial to avoid unexpected legal obligations.

    G.R. NO. 130845, November 27, 2000: BRYAN U. VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, JULIO N. SEBASTIAN AND SHIRLEY LORILLA, RESPONDENTS.

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine purchasing your dream property, armed with a ‘clean’ Torrens Title, only to discover later that your neighbor has a legal right to pass through a portion of your land. This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a reality faced by many property owners in the Philippines. The case of Villanueva v. Velasco highlights a critical aspect of Philippine property law: the enforceability of easements, particularly rights of way, even when they are not explicitly stated on the property’s title. This case serves as a stark reminder that a seemingly pristine title is not always the definitive word on property encumbrances and underscores the importance of thorough due diligence before any property purchase.

    In this case, Bryan Villanueva bought a property with a ‘clean’ title, unaware of a pre-existing easement of right of way benefiting his neighbors, Julio Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla. When Villanueva attempted to prevent them from using the easement, the dispute escalated to the Supreme Court. The central legal question became: Can an easement of right of way, not annotated on the Torrens Title, be enforced against a subsequent buyer of the property?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: EASEMENTS AND THE TORRENS SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Philippine property law recognizes the concept of easements or servitudes, which are encumbrances on real property that benefit another property or person. These are governed primarily by the Civil Code of the Philippines. An easement of right of way, specifically, grants a person the right to pass through another’s property to access their own. Crucially, easements can be established either voluntarily, through agreements, or by law, known as legal or compulsory easements.

    Article 613 of the Civil Code defines an easement as “an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.” Article 617 further emphasizes their inherent nature: “Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or passively belong.” This inseparability is a key principle in understanding why easements can bind subsequent owners, as seen in the Villanueva case.

    There are two main types of easements relevant to this case:

    • Voluntary Easements: These are established by the will or agreement of the property owners. The contract between the original owner, Gabriel spouses, and the Espinolas (predecessors of Sebastian and Lorilla) created a voluntary easement of right of way.
    • Legal Easements: These are mandated by law, often due to necessity or public interest. Article 649 of the Civil Code establishes legal easements of right of way for properties surrounded by others and lacking adequate access to a public highway. It states, “The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.”

    The Torrens System, implemented through Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), aims to create indefeasible titles, meaning titles that are generally free from claims and encumbrances not listed on the certificate of title. Section 39 of the Land Registration Law (Act 496, predecessor of PD 1529) states that every registered owner “shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate.” This principle underpins the idea of relying on the ‘cleanliness’ of a Torrens Title.

    However, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized exceptions to the absolute reliance on Torrens Titles, especially concerning easements. While annotation of easements is ideal for notice, the inherent nature of certain easements, particularly legal easements, means they can exist and be enforceable even without explicit annotation. Furthermore, Section 76 of P.D. No. 1529 regarding lis pendens (notice of pending litigation) highlights the importance of registering legal actions affecting land to bind third parties. The absence of such notice in Villanueva’s case became a point of contention.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: VILLANUEVA VS. VELASCO

    The narrative of Villanueva v. Velasco unfolds through a series of property transfers and legal actions:

    1. 1979: Voluntary Easement Constituted. The Gabriel spouses, then owners of the land, granted a two-meter wide easement of right of way to the Espinola family to access Tandang Sora Avenue. This was formalized in a Contract of Easement of Right of Way.
    2. Pre-1983: House Construction. Unbeknownst to the Espinolas, the Gabriels constructed a small house that encroached on one meter of this easement.
    3. 1983: Property Transfer to Pacific Banking Corporation. The Gabriel spouses’ property was foreclosed and acquired by Pacific Banking Corporation.
    4. 1991: Civil Case Filed. Julio Sebastian and Shirley Lorilla, successors-in-interest to the Espinolas, filed Civil Case No. Q-91-8703 against the Gabriel spouses to enforce the easement and demand demolition of the encroaching house.
    5. 1991-1992: Injunction and Court Orders. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and subsequently a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the Gabriels to provide the right of way and demolish the house. The Court of Appeals upheld these orders, and the decision became final in July 1992.
    6. 1995: Villanueva Purchases Property. Bryan Villanueva bought the property from Pacific Banking Corporation. Crucially, he was unaware of the ongoing legal battle and the easement, which was not annotated on the title.
    7. 1995: Alias Writ of Demolition and Third-Party Claim. An Alias Writ of Demolition was issued to enforce the 1992 court order. Villanueva filed a Third-Party Claim, arguing he wasn’t a party to the original case and the easement wasn’t on his title. This claim was denied.
    8. 1996-2000: Appeals to Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Villanueva appealed to the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court, arguing that the easement was not enforceable against him because it wasn’t annotated on his title and he wasn’t a party to the original case.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Quisumbing, ultimately denied Villanueva’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court reasoned that the easement was not only a voluntary easement by grant but also a legal easement by necessity, given the landlocked nature of the respondents’ property and their need for access to a public highway. The Court stated:

    “At the outset, we note that the subject easement (right of way) originally was voluntarily constituted by agreement between the Gabriels and the Espinolas… But as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the easement in the instant petition is both (1) an easement by grant or a voluntary easement, and (2) an easement by necessity or a legal easement.”

    The Court emphasized the inherent and inseparable nature of legal easements, citing Article 617 of the Civil Code. It further held that Villanueva, as a subsequent purchaser, was bound by the court’s decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-8703, even though he wasn’t a party, because he was a successor-in-interest after the case’s commencement. According to Rule 39, Sec. 47 of the Revised Rules of Court, judgments are conclusive “between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.” The Supreme Court concluded:

    “Simply stated, a decision in a case is conclusive and binding upon the parties to said case and those who are their successor in interest by title after said case has been commenced or filed in court… Hence, the decision in Civil Case No. Q-91-8703 binds petitioner. For, although not a party to the suit, he is a successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action in court.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR PROPERTY INVESTMENTS

    Villanueva v. Velasco carries significant implications for property buyers and sellers in the Philippines. It underscores that relying solely on a ‘clean’ Torrens Title is insufficient due diligence. Potential buyers must be proactive in investigating potential encumbrances that may not be explicitly recorded on the title.

    For property buyers, this case emphasizes the need to:

    • Conduct a physical inspection of the property: Look for visible signs of easements, such as pathways or structures that might indicate a right of way. Talk to neighbors about potential easements.
    • Go beyond title verification: Inquire with the previous owners and neighbors about any agreements or legal disputes related to easements or rights of way.
    • Engage legal counsel for thorough due diligence: A lawyer can investigate beyond the title, review relevant documents, and advise on potential risks associated with unannotated easements.
    • Consider a геодезия survey: This can help identify any encroachments or existing easements that might not be apparent from visual inspection alone.

    For property sellers, especially developers, transparency is key. Disclose any known easements, even unannotated ones, to potential buyers to avoid future legal disputes and ensure smooth transactions.

    Key Lessons from Villanueva v. Velasco:

    • Clean Title is Not Always Definitive: Torrens Title provides strong protection, but inherent legal easements can still bind subsequent owners even without annotation.
    • Due Diligence is Paramount: Buyers must go beyond title verification and conduct thorough investigations to uncover potential hidden encumbrances.
    • Legal Easements are Powerful: Easements by necessity, mandated by law, are particularly robust and less susceptible to being extinguished by lack of annotation.
    • Successors-in-Interest are Bound: Court decisions regarding property rights can bind subsequent owners who acquire the property after the legal action commenced.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is an easement of right of way?

    A: It is a legal right granted to a person to pass through another person’s property to gain access to their own property, typically to reach a public road.

    Q2: Does an easement need to be written down to be legal?

    A: Voluntary easements usually arise from contracts and should be written. Legal easements are created by law and exist regardless of a written agreement, although court confirmation may be needed to enforce them.

    Q3: What is a Torrens Title and does it guarantee a property is free of all problems?

    A: A Torrens Title is a certificate of title issued under the Torrens system, intended to be indefeasible and evidence of ownership. However, it is not an absolute guarantee against all claims. As Villanueva v. Velasco shows, certain legal encumbrances like inherent easements can still exist even if not on the title.

    Q4: What is ‘due diligence’ when buying property?

    A: Due diligence is the process of thorough investigation before buying property. It includes verifying the title, inspecting the property physically, checking for unpaid taxes or liens, and inquiring about potential legal issues like easements or boundary disputes.

    Q5: How can I find out if a property has an easement if it’s not on the title?

    A: Talk to the current property owner, neighbors, and barangay officials. Conduct a physical inspection for visible signs of easements. Consult with a lawyer to investigate property records and potential legal easements based on the property’s location and context.

    Q6: What happens if I buy a property and later discover an unannotated easement?

    A: As Villanueva v. Velasco illustrates, you may be legally bound to respect the easement, especially if it’s a legal easement. Your recourse might be against the seller for non-disclosure, but enforcing your rights could be complex and costly. Preventative due diligence is crucial.

    Q7: Is it always necessary to annotate easements on the Torrens Title?

    A: While not always legally mandatory for all types of easements to be enforceable, annotating easements on the Torrens Title is highly advisable. It provides clear public notice and strengthens the easement’s enforceability against future buyers, preventing disputes and ensuring clarity of property rights.

    ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Property Rights in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Right of Way in the Philippines: When Can You Legally Demand Access Through a Neighbor’s Property?

    Convenience vs. Necessity: Understanding Legal Easement of Right of Way in the Philippines

    n

    TLDR: This case clarifies that a legal easement of right of way is granted based on necessity, not mere convenience. If an adequate, albeit inconvenient, outlet to a public highway exists, a compulsory easement through a neighbor’s property will not be granted in the Philippines.

    nn

    G.R. No. 125339, June 22, 1998

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine owning a property seemingly landlocked, surrounded by others’ estates with no direct path to the main road. This predicament is not uncommon and brings to the forefront the legal concept of ‘easement of right of way.’ In the Philippines, this legal principle allows owners of ‘dominant estates’ – properties without adequate access to a public highway – to demand a passageway through a ‘servient estate,’ a neighboring property. However, the scope and limitations of this right are often misunderstood, leading to disputes between neighbors. The case of Cristobal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125339, decided by the Supreme Court in 1998, provides crucial insights into when a legal easement of right of way can be rightfully claimed, emphasizing that necessity, not mere convenience, is the determining factor.

    nn

    This case revolves around the Cristobal family, who sought a right of way through the Pacione spouses’ property to access Visayas Avenue, a public highway in Quezon City. The central legal question was whether the Cristobals were entitled to a compulsory easement, given that an alternative, albeit less convenient, route already existed.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

    n

    The legal framework for easement of right of way in the Philippines is primarily found in the Civil Code. Specifically, Articles 649 and 650 outline the conditions under which this type of easement can be established. Article 649, paragraph 1, is particularly pertinent:

    nn

    “The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.”

    nn

    This provision clearly establishes the right of an owner of an enclosed estate to demand a right of way. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to specific conditions. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this article, emphasizing that the easement is not about providing the most convenient access but about alleviating a real necessity. Key jurisprudence, such as Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals, has stressed that “convenience of the dominant estate is not a gauge for the grant of compulsory right of way. The true standard for the grant of the legal right is ‘adequacy.’” This means that if an existing outlet, even if inconvenient, is sufficient to access a public highway, a compulsory easement is not justified.

    nn

    Furthermore, Article 650 of the Civil Code adds another layer of criteria, stating:

    nn

    “The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.”

    nn

    This article introduces two crucial considerations: least prejudice to the servient estate and, secondarily, shortest distance. The “least prejudicial” criterion is prioritized over the “shortest distance,” meaning the easement should be located where it causes the minimum damage or inconvenience to the property burdened by it. This balancing act between the needs of the dominant estate and the rights of the servient estate is central to easement disputes.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: CRISTOBAL VS. COURT OF APPEALS

    n

    The Cristobal family had resided in their Quezon City property since 1961. Initially, they used a private road, Road Lot 2, owned by Cesar Ledesma, Inc., to access Visayas Avenue. This road lot was later converted into residential lots, Lots 1 and 2, and eventually sold to the Pacione spouses. When the Pacione spouses planned to build on Lot 1, they discovered the Cristobals were using a portion of it as a passageway.

    nn

    Here’s a chronological breakdown of the key events:

    n

      n

    1. 1961 Onwards: Cristobal family resides at No. 10 Visayas Avenue Extension, Quezon City, using Road Lot 2 for access.

      2. n

    2. 1979: Visayas Avenue becomes a national road. Cesar Ledesma, Inc. petitions to convert Road Lot 2 into residential lots. The petition is granted.

      3. n

    3. Road Lot 2 Conversion: Road Lot 2 becomes Lots 1 and 2.

      4. n

    4. Sale to Paciones: Cesar Ledesma, Inc. sells Lots 1 and 2 to Macario Pacione, who then transfers them to his son and daughter-in-law, spouses Jesus and Lerma Pacione.

      5. n

    5. 1987: Pacione spouses find squatters and Cristobals using Lot 1 as passageway. Barangay conciliation fails as Cristobals’ offer to pay for right of way is rejected.

      6. n

    6. Enclosure Attempt: Pacione spouses begin enclosing Lot 1 with a fence.

      7. n

    7. Easement Lawsuit: Cristobals file an action for easement of right of way and TRO.

      8. n

    8. Trial Court TRO: Trial court issues TRO against fencing.

      9. n

    9. Ocular Inspection: Court orders ocular inspection; a Board of Commissioners is formed.

      10. n

    10. Sheriff’s Report: Deputy Sheriff Dela Cruz reports an alternative route via Ma. Elena St. and a private road.

      11. n

    11. Trial Court Decision: Trial court dismisses Cristobals’ complaint, finding an adequate alternative outlet exists.

      12. n

    12. Court of Appeals (CA) Appeal: Cristobals appeal, arguing the trial court erred and the road lot conversion was illegal.

      13. n

    13. CA Decision: Court of Appeals affirms trial court, emphasizing “adequacy” over “convenience” and rejecting the new issue of illegal conversion on appeal.

      14. n

    14. Supreme Court Petition: Cristobals petition the Supreme Court.

      15. n

    nn

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the factual findings of the lower courts that an alternative route existed. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

    nn

    “To justify the imposition of an easement of right of way, there must be real, not fictitious 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.”

    nn

    The Court found that the Cristobals had not sufficiently proven the lack of an adequate outlet. The sheriff’s report indicated a pathway through Ma. Elena Street and a private road leading to Visayas Avenue. While this route might have been longer or less convenient, the courts deemed it “adequate.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted the Cristobals failed to demonstrate that the proposed easement over the Pacione property was the “least prejudicial” option, especially considering the small size of Lot 1.

    nn

    Regarding the legality of the road lot conversion, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that this issue was raised too late on appeal. Moreover, it pointed out that the legality had already been settled in a previous Land Registration Case. The Court also mentioned the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, suggesting that issues of subdivision lot conversion are properly addressed by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), not regular courts initially.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS CASE MEANS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS

    n

    Cristobal v. Court of Appeals serves as a strong reminder that the right to demand an easement of right of way is not automatically granted simply because access through a neighbor’s property is more convenient. Philippine courts prioritize necessity and consider existing alternatives, even if those alternatives are less desirable. This case has significant implications for property owners, buyers, and developers:

    nn

      n

    • Due Diligence for Buyers: Prospective property buyers, especially those purchasing properties that might seem landlocked or with limited access, must conduct thorough due diligence. Investigate all existing access routes to public highways and assess their adequacy. Do not assume a right of way will be automatically granted over a more convenient neighboring property.

      • n

    • Burden of Proof: The burden of proving the necessity for an easement of right of way lies squarely on the owner of the dominant estate. This requires presenting clear and convincing evidence that no adequate alternative outlet exists and that the proposed easement is the least prejudicial option for the servient estate.

      • n


  • Understanding Easements of Right-of-Way in Philippine Property Law

    Voluntary Easements: When Agreements Shape Property Rights

    G.R. No. 95252, September 05, 1997

    TLDR: This case clarifies that voluntary easements of right-of-way, created by agreement between property owners, are binding and can only be extinguished by mutual consent or renunciation, not simply by the availability of another route. It highlights how these agreements, once established, create lasting property rights that impact subsequent owners.

    Introduction

    Imagine owning property accessible only through a road on your neighbor’s land. What happens when that neighbor decides to block access? This scenario highlights the critical importance of easements of right-of-way, which grant specific individuals the right to use another’s property for passage. This case, La Vista Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, delves into the complexities of voluntary easements and their enduring impact on property rights in the Philippines.

    The dispute revolves around Mangyan Road, a 15-meter wide road bordering La Vista Subdivision and Ateneo de Manila University, leading to Loyola Grand Villas Subdivision. The central question is whether an easement of right-of-way exists over Mangyan Road, allowing Loyola Grand Villas residents access to Katipunan Avenue.

    Legal Context: Easements Under Philippine Law

    An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. It essentially grants a right to use another person’s property in a specific way. Easements can be established in two primary ways: by law (legal or compulsory easements) or by the agreement of the parties (voluntary easements).

    The Civil Code of the Philippines defines easements and their characteristics. Article 619 states, “An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.”

    Legal or compulsory easements, as defined under Art. 649 and 650, are created by law when certain conditions are met, such as a property being landlocked. For a compulsory easement, the following requisites must be present:

    • The estate is surrounded by other immovables and lacks adequate access to a public highway.
    • Proper indemnity is paid.
    • The isolation is not due to the proprietor’s own acts.
    • The right-of-way claimed is the least prejudicial to the servient estate, and the shortest distance to a public highway.

    Voluntary easements, on the other hand, arise from the agreement of the parties involved. These agreements are contractual in nature and bind not only the original parties but also their successors-in-interest. Once established, a voluntary easement can only be extinguished by mutual agreement or renunciation by the owner of the dominant estate.

    Case Breakdown: The Battle Over Mangyan Road

    The story begins with the Tuasons, original owners of the land encompassing La Vista and the Ateneo property. In 1949, they sold a portion to Philippine Building Corporation, stipulating that a 15-meter wide road (Mangyan Road) would serve as the boundary, with each party contributing 7.5 meters. Philippine Building Corporation later assigned its rights to Ateneo de Manila University, with the Tuasons’ consent.

    Over the years, disputes arose regarding the use of Mangyan Road. Ateneo eventually sold a portion of its land to Solid Homes, Inc., which developed Loyola Grand Villas. Residents of Loyola Grand Villas sought access to Katipunan Avenue via Mangyan Road, but La Vista Association blocked their passage, claiming no right-of-way existed.

    The case wound its way through the courts:

    • Trial Court: Ruled in favor of Solid Homes, Inc., recognizing the easement of right-of-way.
    • Court of Appeals: Affirmed the trial court’s decision.
    • Supreme Court: Upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, solidifying the existence of the voluntary easement.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the intent of the original parties to establish an easement for their mutual benefit. As the Court stated:

    “These certainly are indubitable proofs that the parties concerned had indeed constituted a voluntary easement of right-of-way over Mangyan Road and, like any other contract, the same could be extinguished only by mutual agreement or by renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate.”

    Further, the Court highlighted the binding nature of contractual stipulations:

    “Like any other contractual stipulation, the same cannot be extinguished except by voluntary rescission of the contract establishing the servitude or renunciation by the owner of the dominant lots… more so when the easement was implicitly recognized by the letters of the La Vista President to Ateneo dated February 11 and April 28, 1976.”

    Practical Implications: Protecting Your Property Rights

    This case underscores the importance of clearly defining property rights and easements in writing. Agreements, such as deeds of sale, should explicitly outline the terms and conditions of any easements, including their location, scope, and duration. These agreements are binding on subsequent property owners, making it crucial to conduct thorough due diligence before purchasing property.

    For homeowners’ associations, this case serves as a reminder that they cannot unilaterally extinguish easements that were validly established by their predecessors-in-interest. Respecting existing property rights is essential to maintaining harmonious community relations and avoiding costly legal battles.

    Key Lessons

    • Document Everything: Ensure all agreements regarding easements are in writing and properly recorded.
    • Due Diligence: Thoroughly investigate property records to identify existing easements before purchasing property.
    • Respect Existing Rights: Homeowners’ associations must honor easements established by previous owners.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is an easement of right-of-way?

    A: It is a legal right that allows someone to pass through another person’s property. It can be either compulsory (granted by law) or voluntary (agreed upon by the parties).

    Q: How is a voluntary easement created?

    A: A voluntary easement is created through an agreement between property owners. This agreement should be in writing and clearly define the terms of the easement.

    Q: Can a homeowners’ association terminate a voluntary easement?

    A: No, a homeowners’ association cannot unilaterally terminate a voluntary easement. It can only be extinguished by mutual agreement of the parties or renunciation by the owner of the dominant estate.

    Q: What happens if a property owner blocks an easement?

    A: The owner of the dominant estate can seek legal remedies, such as an injunction, to prevent the obstruction of the easement and recover damages.

    Q: Does the existence of another access route extinguish a voluntary easement?

    A: No, the existence of another access route does not automatically extinguish a voluntary easement. Voluntary easements are based on contract and remain valid unless terminated by agreement or renunciation.

    Q: Is a verbal agreement for an easement valid?

    A: While a verbal agreement might be binding in some situations, it is highly recommended to have all easement agreements in writing to avoid future disputes and ensure enforceability.

    Q: Who is responsible for maintaining an easement?

    A: The responsibility for maintaining an easement is typically outlined in the agreement creating the easement. If the agreement is silent, both the dominant and servient estate owners may have a responsibility to contribute to the maintenance.

    ASG Law specializes in real estate law and property disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Property Rights: Understanding Easements of Right of Way in the Philippines

    When Can You Demand a Right of Way Through a Neighbor’s Property?

    TLDR: This case clarifies the requirements for establishing a compulsory easement of right of way in the Philippines. Landowners whose property is landlocked may demand a passageway through neighboring estates, provided they meet specific conditions, including proving lack of access, willingness to indemnify, and demonstrating that the chosen route causes the least damage.

    G.R. No. 127549, January 28, 1998

    Introduction

    Imagine owning a piece of land, only to find it completely surrounded by other properties with no way to access a public road. This predicament can severely limit the use and value of your property. Philippine law, however, provides a solution: the easement of right of way. This legal concept allows landowners in such situations to demand a passageway through neighboring properties to reach a public highway. This case, Spouses Cesar and Raquel Sta. Maria vs. Court of Appeals, delves into the intricacies of establishing this right, highlighting the conditions and considerations involved.

    In this case, the Spouses Fajardo sought a right of way through the Sta. Maria’s property to access the provincial road. The Sta. Marias resisted, arguing that other access routes existed and that granting the easement would cause them undue hardship. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Fajardos, affirming the lower courts’ decisions and underscoring the importance of fulfilling all legal requirements for such easements.

    Legal Context: Easement of Right of Way

    The legal basis for easements of right of way in the Philippines is found in the Civil Code. An easement is a legal encumbrance on a property that benefits another property or person. It’s essentially a right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose. In the case of a right of way, it allows the owner of a landlocked property (the dominant estate) to pass through a neighboring property (the servient estate) to reach a public road.

    Article 649 of the Civil Code is the cornerstone of this right, stating:

    “The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

    Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.

    In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.

    The easement shall be granted to the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.

    The law doesn’t grant this right automatically. The Supreme Court has consistently held that certain requisites must be met before a compulsory easement of right of way can be established. These include:

    • The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway.
    • There is payment of proper indemnity to the owner of the servient estate.
    • The isolation of the dominant estate is not due to the acts of its own proprietor.
    • The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.

    Case Breakdown: Spouses Sta. Maria vs. Spouses Fajardo

    The story begins when the Spouses Fajardo purchased a landlocked property in Obando, Bulacan. Their lot was surrounded by other properties, including those owned by the Spouses Sta. Maria and Florcerfida Sta. Maria. Finding themselves without adequate access to the provincial road, the Fajardos requested a right of way through the Sta. Marias’ property.

    The Sta. Marias refused, leading the Fajardos to file a complaint in court. The Sta. Marias initially tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the matter should have been brought before the barangay lupon (local arbitration council) first. However, the court denied their motion, and the case proceeded to trial.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • February 17, 1992: Spouses Fajardo file a complaint for the establishment of an easement of right of way.
    • May 18, 1992: The lower court denies the Sta. Marias’ motion to dismiss.
    • June 30, 1994: The trial court grants the Fajardos’ prayer for an easement of right of way.
    • December 18, 1996: The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s decision with a modification on property valuation.

    During the trial, an ocular inspection was conducted on the properties. The inspection report revealed that the Fajardos’ property was indeed landlocked and that the Sta. Marias’ property offered the shortest and least prejudicial route to the provincial road. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of the Fajardos, granting them a right of way through the Sta. Marias’ property and ordering them to pay indemnity.

    The Sta. Marias appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision with a modification regarding the property valuation. Undeterred, the Sta. Marias elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, upheld the findings of the lower courts. It emphasized that the Fajardos had successfully demonstrated all the requisites for a compulsory easement of right of way. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ findings, stating:

    “Among the three (3) possible servient estates, it is clear that defendants-appellants’ property would afford the shortest distance from plaintiffs-appellees’ property to the provincial road. Moreover, it is the least prejudicial since as found by the lower court, ‘(i)t appears that there would be no significant structures to be injured in the defendants’ property and the right-of-way to be constructed thereon would be the shortest of all the alternative routes pointed to by the defendants’”

    The Court also addressed the Sta. Marias’ argument that the Fajardos’ predecessors-in-interest had caused the isolation of their property by constructing fences. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that even without the fences, the property would still be landlocked by neighboring estates.

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Property Owners

    This case serves as a reminder to property owners of their rights and obligations regarding easements of right of way. It clarifies the legal requirements for establishing a compulsory easement and highlights the importance of factual evidence in such cases.

    For landowners whose property is landlocked, this case offers hope. It confirms their right to demand a passageway through neighboring properties, provided they can demonstrate the necessary conditions. However, it also emphasizes the need to be prepared to pay proper indemnity and to ensure that the chosen route causes the least possible damage to the servient estate.

    For property owners whose land might be subject to an easement, this case underscores the importance of understanding their legal obligations. While they cannot unreasonably deny a legitimate request for a right of way, they are entitled to proper compensation for the use of their land and any damages incurred.

    Key Lessons

    • Understand Your Rights: Landlocked property owners have the right to demand a right of way, but they must meet all legal requirements.
    • Gather Evidence: Thoroughly document the lack of access, alternative routes, and potential damages to support your claim.
    • Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a lawyer to navigate the legal complexities and ensure your rights are protected.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is an easement of right of way?

    A: It’s a legal right that allows the owner of a landlocked property to pass through a neighboring property to access a public road.

    Q: What are the requirements for establishing a compulsory easement of right of way?

    A: The property must be landlocked, there must be no adequate outlet to a public highway, the isolation must not be due to the owner’s actions, the right of way must be the least prejudicial to the servient estate, and proper indemnity must be paid.

    Q: Who pays for the cost of constructing the right of way?

    A: The owner of the dominant estate (the landlocked property) is typically responsible for the construction and maintenance costs of the right of way.

    Q: Can a right of way be established if there is another possible route, even if it’s longer or more difficult?

    A: Generally, the right of way should be established on the route that is the shortest and least prejudicial to the servient estate. If another route exists but is significantly longer or more difficult, the court may still grant a right of way through the more convenient route.

    Q: What happens if the owner of the servient estate refuses to grant a right of way?

    A: The owner of the dominant estate can file a case in court to compel the owner of the servient estate to grant the right of way.

    Q: How is the amount of indemnity determined?

    A: The indemnity typically includes the value of the land occupied by the right of way and any damages caused to the servient estate.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and real estate litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Right of Way Easements: When Can You Legally Demand Access Across Another’s Property?

    Navigating Property Boundaries: Understanding Easements of Right of Way

    n

    G.R. No. 105294, February 26, 1997, PACITA DAVID-CHAN, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

    n

    Imagine owning a property completely surrounded by other lands, with only a narrow path to the main road. Can you legally demand a wider, more convenient access through your neighbor’s property? This is where the concept of an easement of right of way comes into play. The Supreme Court case of Pacita David-Chan v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirements for establishing such an easement and highlights the importance of fulfilling all legal prerequisites before seeking judicial intervention.

    nn

    What is an Easement of Right of Way?

    n

    An easement of right of way is a legal right that allows a property owner (dominant estate) to pass through another person’s property (servient estate) to access a public road or highway. It’s essentially a burden placed on one property for the benefit of another. The Civil Code of the Philippines governs easements, specifically Articles 649 and 650, which outline the conditions under which a compulsory easement can be claimed.

    n

    Article 649 states, “The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.”

    n

    This means that if your property is landlocked, you may have the right to demand a pathway through your neighbor’s land. However, this right is not absolute and comes with specific conditions. For example, you must prove the lack of adequate access, offer proper compensation, and ensure your own actions didn’t cause the isolation.

    n

    Think of a residential area where several houses are built behind each other. The houses at the back might need to pass through the front properties to reach the main street. If there’s no other reasonable way to access the street, an easement of right of way might be necessary.

    nn

    The David-Chan Case: Facts and Court’s Decision

    n

    Pacita David-Chan owned a property in San Fernando, Pampanga, almost entirely surrounded by other properties, with only a narrow, two-foot-four-inch opening to the MacArthur Highway through land owned by Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (PRBL). She sought a wider easement and attempted to prevent PRBL from fencing its property, claiming it would cut off her access. She argued that she was entitled to a wider compulsory easement of right of way through PRBL’s property.

    n

    The case went through the following stages:

    n

      n

    • Regional Trial Court (RTC): Dismissed David-Chan’s petition, finding it without merit.

      • n

    • Court of Appeals (CA): Affirmed the RTC’s decision, stating that David-Chan had not met the legal requirements for an easement of right of way.

      • n

    • Supreme Court (SC): Upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless there is a clear error.

      • n

    n

    The Supreme Court highlighted several key reasons for denying David-Chan’s petition. The Court noted that David-Chan herself had constructed a fence that blocked another potential access route through the Pineda family’s property. The Court also pointed out that there was no evidence of a valid tender of payment for the easement. As the Court stated, “The fact that plaintiff prays that defendant Rabbit be ordered to sell to her the disputed premises hardly satisfies the requisite regarding the payment of the proper indemnity.”

    n

    The Court emphasized that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals upholding those of the trial court are binding upon this Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.

    n

    The Supreme Court also rejected David-Chan’s appeal based on Filipino values like pakikisama (getting along) and pakikipagkapwa-tao (sense of shared identity). The Court clarified that equity applies only when there’s no applicable law, and it cannot override existing legal principles.

    nn

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    n

    This case serves as a reminder that simply needing an easement of right of way doesn’t automatically grant you the right to one. You must meet all the legal requirements outlined in the Civil Code.

    n

    Here are key lessons from the David-Chan case:

    n

      n

    • Prove Lack of Adequate Access: Demonstrate that your property is truly landlocked or has inadequate access to a public road.

      • n

    • Offer Proper Indemnity: Be prepared to compensate the owner of the servient estate for the use of their land.

      • n

    • Don’t Cause Your Own Isolation: Ensure your actions haven’t contributed to the lack of access.

      • n

    • Comply with Legal Requirements: Adhere to all legal prerequisites before seeking judicial relief.

      • n

    n

    Hypothetical: Suppose a developer builds a subdivision but fails to secure proper road access for all lots. The owners of the inner lots cannot simply demand a right of way through the front lots without proving the conditions of Article 649 are met. The developer’s negligence doesn’t automatically create a legal right.

    n

    Another hypothetical: If a landowner intentionally blocks a previously existing access road to their property, they cannot later claim an easement of right of way through a neighbor’s land because their own actions created the isolation.

    nn

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    n

    Q: What are the requirements for claiming an easement of right of way?

    n

    A: The key requirements are: (1) the property is surrounded by other immovables and lacks adequate access to a public highway; (2) proper indemnity is paid; (3) the isolation is not due to the proprietor’s own acts; and (4) the right of way is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

    nn

    Q: What does

  • Navigating Right of Way Disputes: Choosing the Least Prejudicial Easement

    Choosing the Least Prejudicial Right of Way: A Property Owner’s Guide

    G.R. No. 112331, May 29, 1996

    Imagine owning a property tucked away, with no direct access to the main road. This is a common problem, and the law provides a solution: the right of way. But what happens when neighbors disagree about the best route? This case, Quimen v. Court of Appeals, sheds light on how Philippine courts determine the ‘least prejudicial’ path when establishing an easement of right of way.

    Understanding Easement of Right of Way

    An easement of right of way is a legal right that allows a person to pass through another person’s property to access a public road. This right is essential for landlocked properties, ensuring that owners can access their land. The Civil Code of the Philippines governs easements, specifically Articles 649 to 683.

    Article 649 states:

    The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

    This means that if your property is enclosed by others and lacks access to a public road, you have the right to demand a path through your neighbor’s land, provided you compensate them.

    The law prioritizes the ‘least prejudicial’ route. This doesn’t always mean the shortest distance; it means the route that causes the least damage or inconvenience to the property owner granting the right of way. For instance, if the shortest route requires demolishing a building, a longer route that avoids this might be preferred.

    Example: Suppose two properties are landlocked. One option for a right of way goes directly across a neighbor’s manicured garden. The other, slightly longer, goes along the edge of the property, avoiding the garden. The court would likely choose the latter because it’s the least prejudicial, even if it’s not the shortest.

    The Quimen v. Court of Appeals Case: A Story of Access and Avocado Trees

    The Quimen case involves a dispute between Anastacia Quimen and Yolanda Oliveros over a right of way in Pandi, Bulacan. The land in question was originally part of a larger property inherited by Anastacia and her siblings. Yolanda purchased a portion of this land from Anastacia’s brother, Antonio, with the understanding that she would be granted a right of way through Anastacia’s property.

    Initially, Yolanda used a pathway through Anastacia’s land. However, Anastacia later blocked this access, leading Yolanda to file a legal action to formalize her right of way. The proposed right of way would cut through Anastacia’s property, requiring the removal of an avocado tree.

    The trial court initially dismissed Yolanda’s complaint, suggesting an alternative route through the property of Yolanda’s parents, which would require demolishing a portion of their store. Yolanda appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, granting her the right of way through Anastacia’s property.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the principle that the ‘least prejudicial’ route should be chosen, even if it’s not the shortest. The Court highlighted the following points:

    • Yolanda’s property was indeed landlocked and required a right of way.
    • The proposed route through Anastacia’s property, while requiring the removal of an avocado tree, was less prejudicial than demolishing a store.
    • The Court considered the relative damage to both parties in making its decision.

    As the Supreme Court stated:

    In other words, where the easement may be established on any of several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen. However, as elsewhere stated, if these two (2) circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.

    The Court prioritized minimizing damage to the servient estate (Anastacia’s property) while ensuring Yolanda had adequate access to a public road.

    The procedural journey included:

    1. Filing of complaint by Yolanda Oliveros for a right of way.
    2. Ocular inspection conducted by the branch clerk of court.
    3. Dismissal of the complaint by the trial court.
    4. Appeal by Yolanda Oliveros to the Court of Appeals.
    5. Reversal of the trial court’s decision by the Court of Appeals.
    6. Appeal by Anastacia Quimen to the Supreme Court.
    7. Affirmation of the Court of Appeals’ decision by the Supreme Court.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Your Property Rights

    This case reinforces the importance of considering the ‘least prejudicial’ route when establishing a right of way. It provides guidance for property owners facing similar disputes and highlights the factors courts consider when making these decisions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Prioritize Minimizing Damage: When negotiating a right of way, focus on minimizing damage to the servient estate.
    • Consider Alternatives: Explore all possible routes and weigh the potential impact of each.
    • Document Agreements: Ensure any agreements regarding right of way are clearly documented to avoid future disputes.

    Hypothetical Example: A developer purchases landlocked property intending to build several homes. To gain access, they propose a right of way that bisects a neighbor’s farm. Citing Quimen, the neighbor argues for a route along the farm’s perimeter, even if longer, to preserve their agricultural operations. The court is likely to side with the neighbor due to the principle of least prejudice.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is an easement of right of way?

    A: It is a legal right to pass through someone else’s property to access a public road.

    Q: Who pays for the right of way?

    A: The owner of the landlocked property (dominant estate) typically pays the owner of the property granting the right of way (servient estate) a fair indemnity.

    Q: What does ‘least prejudicial’ mean?

    A: It means the route that causes the least damage, inconvenience, or disruption to the property owner granting the right of way.

    Q: Can a right of way be changed or terminated?

    A: Yes, under certain circumstances, such as when the need for it ceases or when a different, more convenient route becomes available.

    Q: What if the shortest route is the most prejudicial?

    A: The law prioritizes the ‘least prejudicial’ route, even if it’s not the shortest.

    Q: What factors do courts consider when determining the ‘least prejudicial’ route?

    A: Courts consider the nature of the properties involved, the potential damage to each property, and the overall convenience and accessibility of the proposed routes.

    ASG Law specializes in real estate law and property disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.