3. [This item has two questions.] With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver’s land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil’s subdivision, on the other hand, already had a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon. 1âшphi1 Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil’s subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To protect the right of way over Phil’s subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil’s property. However, when Oliver’s subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh. When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver’s subdivision with his. Oliver filed a complaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil’s subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim cancelled. (a) Is Oliver entitled to a right of way through Phil’s subdivision? Explain briefly. Is there basis to have the adverse claim cancelled? Explain briefly. (5 points)