Property Access for Construction Denied Due to Lack of Absolute Necessity

A party sought judicial authorization to carry out a work that required entering the neighbor's property, which was refused by the lower court based on the neighbor's opposition. The appellate court upheld the refusal, reasoning that while the law permits necessary access for construction or repair work, the proposed work did not meet the criteria of absolute necessity, as the party could achieve the desired outcome through alternative, less intrusive means. The highest court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the refusal was justified because the claimed necessity for invading the neighbor's property was not established, as reasonable alternatives existed to complete the project.