GR No. 105294
February 26, 1997
Facts
p<> Petitioner’s lot is completely surrounded by other immovables. According to her, her only access to the highway was a very small opening through the property of private respondent. Petitioner believed that she was entitled to a wider compulsory easement of right of way. However, the respondent was constructing a fence on his property which deprived the petitioner of an only available right of way. Therefore, petitioner filed an amended petition with prayer for preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondent in constructing the fence. Moreover, the petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered to sell the 161-m lot to petitioner.
In his defense, respondent averred that the lot in dispute was bought by him from the Singian brothers and such was free from any liens and encumbrances. Moreover, the parents and relatives of petitioner were never tenants or lessees of the former owner, Singian Brothers; rather, they were found to be illegally occupying the property as ruled by the MTC. Moreover, the respondent is not selling the lot because it needed the lot and because the petitioner as another access to the highway.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondents. Hence, this petition. Petitioner claims to be an “ordinary housewife (with) . . . meager resources”. Therefore, she pleads that “those who have less in life should have more in law” and that the Court should apply the Filipino values of pakikisama and pakikipag-kapwa-tao in resolving the case.
Issue
Whether or not the principle of equity should be applied in resolving the case.
Held
No. Equity has been aptly described as “justice outside legality.” However, equity is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
As found by respondent Court, petitioner is not legally entitled to a right of way on the property of private respondent. In this case, petitioner has correctly cited the legal requirements for an easement of a right of way but she failed to back up such with factual findings. And such findings of fact by the trial courts shall not be disturbed by the SC. Thus, the equitable arguments advanced by the petitioner cannot prevail over the legal findings.