The burden of proving the existence of the requisites of easement of right of way lies on the owner of the dominant

estate. In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellants failed to prove that there is no adequate outlet from their property to a public highway. 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." Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public highway, 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 of way, 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 been settled that the criteria of "least prejudicial" prevails over shortest distance. Each case must be weighed 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. 649 and 650 of the Civil Code must be established. These are: (1) that the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) that proper indemnity has been paid; (3) that the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; (4) that the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, in so far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. 9 The burden of proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate. 10 Sec. 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 facts of such loss or destruction may be filed 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 due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree. 2 (Emphasis added)

11. That in support for the reconstitution of [OCT] No. 3980, the following documents which may 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 x x x[.]4 During the trial, the testimony of co-respondent Evelyn Fontanilla- Gozum was offered in order to prove the above-mentioned allegations in the petition. In her testimony, she declared that she is the daughter of the late Pedro Fontanilla and co-respondent Concepcion Lorenzo who, during their marriage, 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

said Torrens certificate of title was later discovered to have been eaten by termites and that the original copy of the said Torrens certificate of title on file with the Register of Deeds of Isabela was certified to be burned and lost beyond recovery when the office was razed by fire of unknown origin on December 4, 1976 as certified to by the Register of Deeds. Since both the original copy on file and the owners duplicate copy are non-existent, she and her co-heirs, who are also co-respondents in 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.