(Question VI, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam)
Tyler owns a lot that is enclosed by the lots of Riley to the North and East, of Dylan to the South, and of Reece to the West. The current route to the public highway is a kilometer’s walk through the northern lot of Riley, but the route is a rough road that gets muddy during the rainy season, and is inconvenient because it is only 2.5 meters wide. Tyler’s nearest access to the public highway would be through the southern lot of Dylan.
May Dylan be legally required to afford to Tyler a right of way through his property? Explain your answer. (4%)
Under jurisprudence, 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 public highway, as in this case, even when the said outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely unjustified. Rule
In the case at bar, there is already an adequate easement through the northern lot of Riley. While inconvenient, it is adequate for the purpose. The test is on adequacy, and not convenience. Apply
Thus, Dylan may not be legally required to afford Tyler a right of way through his property. Conclusion
(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)
Lawyer, Author, Mentor