QUIMEN V. CA257 SCRA 163FACTS:The classic battle of an avocado tree and a sarisari store of strong materials.
HELD:Where the easement may be established on any of the several tenements surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least damage should be chosen but if these two circumstances don’t concur in a single interest, the way which will cause least damage should be used, even if it will not be shortest.

FRANSISCO V. IAC177 SCRA 527FACTS:The Malinta estate was co-owned by two sisters who later donated 1/3 of the property to their niece, 1/3 to the heirs of their deceased sister, and 1/3 was solely conveyed to Cornelia. Adjoining this estate was property of Fransisco, fronting the Paradas road. The new co-owners then partitioned the lot. All the frontage went to the niece. Cornelia subsequently sold her property to Eugenio sisters who then sold it to Ramos. Ramos wanted a right of way through Fransisco’s property.
HELD:If the enclosure or isolation was due to the proprietor’s own acts, then there couldn’t be any compulsory right of way.

FLORO V. LLENADO244 SCRA 713FACTS:Floro was the owner of a subdivision. Here comes Llenado who bought the adjoining subdivision lot, which was formerly Emmanuel Homes. A creek separates the property of Llenado from Floro. On the west side of Llenado’s property was a rice land. On the subdivision plan of Llenado’s property, there was a plan to construct an access road to McArthur Highway but no construction was made. With the two subdivisions, it was Floro’s which only had an access road. Floro allowed usage of his access road pending negotiations but later on closed the property.
HELD:The essential requisites are the following—

1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no adequate outlet to a public highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial  [ ... ]