An Easement of Right of Way (ROW) is a fundamental concept in property law that resolves the dilemma of landlocked estates. It is a type of easement that allows the owner of an estate that is isolated from a public highway to pass over a neighboring land (the servient estate).
The owner of such an isolated estate has two options: file a petition for a legal (compulsory) easement under the Civil Code, or establish a voluntary easement through a contract with the neighboring owner.
1. The Legal Easement of Right of Way (Article 649)
The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable (like a usufructuary), which is isolated from a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, provided proper indemnity is paid. This is based on Article 649 of the Civil Code which provides:
Article 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts. (564a)
Essential Requisites to Demand a Compulsory Easement
The Estate is Surrounded: The property must be enclosed by other estates belonging to different owners.
No Adequate Outlet: There must be no sufficient access to a public highway.
Payment of Indemnity: The owner of the dominant estate must pay the proper indemnity to the servient estate.
Least Prejudicial Location: The easement must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
No Self-Imposed Isolation: The isolation must not be due to the dominant estate owner’s own acts.
The legal right to demand the easement is demandable only by the owner of the estate or one with a legal right like a usufructuary.
Indemnity for the Right of Way
The amount of indemnity depends on the nature of the use:
Permanent Passage (Continuous Use): If the easement’s use is continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate (establishing a permanent passage), the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
Necessary Passage (Temporary Use): If the right of way is limited only to the necessary passage for cultivation and gathering crops without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
Note: This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts (Article 649).
2. Rules on Placement, Distance, and Width
The Least Prejudicial Rule (Article 650)
The easement must be established in a manner that is least prejudicial to the servient estate. Article 650 provides:
Article 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (565)
The Supreme Court, in Quimen vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112331, May 29, 1996), emphasized that the easement should be the least prejudicial to the servient owner, even if it is not the shortest distance. The distance from the dominant estate to a public highway is secondary to the prejudice caused to the servient estate.
The Width of the Easement (Article 651)
The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from time to time (Article 651).
This means the width is dynamic. For example, as the Supreme Court noted in Encarnacion vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 7762, March 29, 1993), if the dominant owner’s needs expand from a motorcycle to a car, the width may need to be adjusted, and the law supports this change. The court in that case criticized the servient estate’s “sheer pig-headedness” in unreasonably impeding the practical use of the easement.
3. Special Rules for Sales, Exchanges, and Partition
Articles 652 and 653 govern situations where the isolation is created through a juridical act between two related parties. The rule on indemnity is reversed to protect the buyer/grantee:
Sale, Exchange, or Partition (Grantor’s Land Encloses): If a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange, or partition is surrounded by the other estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, the grantor shall be obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity (Article 652). The buyer is entitled to an easement of right of way without paying the seller.
Example: A sold an enclosed parcel to B. A is obliged to provide an outlet through A’s remaining property without indemnity.
Grantor’s Land Becomes Isolated (Indemnity Required): If, in the case of a sale or exchange, it is the land of the grantor that becomes isolated, he may demand a right of way after paying an indemnity (Article 653).
Donation (Donee Pays Indemnity): In the case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the establishment of the right of way (Article 652).
Important Distinction: If a seller (A) sells Estate 1 to B and then sells an adjacent Estate 2 to C, and C has no access except through B’s land, C must pay indemnity to B. This is because there is no direct buyer-seller relationship between B and C; thus, Article 649 (compulsory easement) applies, not the exception under Article 652.
4. Maintenance, Taxes, and Extinguishment
Repairs and Taxes (Article 654)
If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the owner of the dominant estate at his own expense (Article 627, cross-referenced). Additionally, the dominant owner must reimburse a proportionate share of the taxes to the proprietor of the servient estate.
Causes for Extinguishment of the Easement
A compulsory easement of right of way is not perpetual. It may be extinguished if the necessity ceases to exist.
Opening of a New Road: The opening of a new road that provides adequate and convenient access.
Joining to Another Estate: The dominant estate joins another property that gives it direct access to a public highway.
Extinguishment is not automatic. The servient owner may demand that the easement be terminated, and they are not obligated to refund the indemnity unless they choose to. This rule applies only to legal or compensatory easements, not to voluntary ones, which are governed by the agreement of the parties.
5. Illustrative Cases
The complexities of the Right of Way are best understood through judicial interpretation:
Self-Imposed Isolation: In Francisco vs. IAC (G.R. No. 64147, Dec. 29, 1992), the court denied the easement because the owner’s own actions (constructing a wall) led to the isolation of his property, affirming the principle of No Self-Imposed Isolation. Similarly, in Floro vs. Llenado (G.R. No. 75723, June 2, 1995), the claim was denied because the isolation was caused by the owner’s failure to develop a proposed road in accordance with subdivision plans, illustrating Isolation Due to Owner’s Acts.
Least Prejudicial Location: The landmark case of Quimen vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112331, May 29, 1996) established the dominance of the Least Prejudicial Rule. The court prioritized the least harmful option (cutting down a tree) over the shortest distance (demolishing a structure), emphasizing that prejudice to the servient estate is the paramount consideration.
Indemnity for Permanent Burden: In NAPOCOR vs. Manubay (G.R. No. 150936, Aug. 18, 2004), the Supreme Court ruled that a public utility must compensate for the full market value of the entire area beneath permanent power lines, not just the area occupied by the towers, because the lines constitute a permanent and extensive burden on the property.
Obligation of the Grantor: Villanueva vs. Velasco (G.R. No. 130845, Sept. 13, 2000) affirmed the Grantor’s Obligation under Article 652: the grantor (vendor or co-owner) is obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity when they create the isolation through sale or partition.
Proving Voluntary Easements: In cases involving Voluntary Easements, the burden of proof lies with the dominant estate. Spouses de la Cruz vs. Ramiscal (G.R. No. 137456, Feb. 4, 2000) found no evidence that the owner had voluntarily granted the right of way, failing to meet the Proof requirement.
Related Easements (Indemnity for Damages)
Easement for Construction Materials (Article 656): If it is indispensable to carry materials through the estate of another for building or repair, the owner of that estate must permit it, but only after receiving payment of proper indemnity for the damage caused to him. If no damage is caused, no indemnity is demandable.
Easements for Animals (Article 657): Easements for animal paths, trails, and watering places are governed by local ordinances and customs. The width of these compulsory easements is limited (e.g., up to 10 meters for a watering place).
The Easement of Right of Way is a complex legal right that balances the freedom of a property owner against the necessity of allowing another person access. Understanding the requisites, especially the rule against self-imposed isolation and the primacy of the least prejudicial location, is key to successfully asserting or defending against this legal claim.
