EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Art. 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)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEFINED
> Easement or privilege by which one person in a particular class of persons is allowed to pass
over another land, usually through one particular path or line
REQUISITES FOR THE EASEMENT
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 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
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
PROPER INDEMNITY
1. If the passage is permanent, pay the value of the land occupied by the path plus damages
2. If temporary, pay for the damages caused
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. Private
2. public
Art. 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)
N.B: Adequacy to dominant estate
Art. 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. (566a)
WIDTH OF PATH
> The width may be modified from time to time depending on the reasonable needs of the
dominant estate
Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is surrounded by other
estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without
indemnity.
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the establishment of
the right of way. (567a)
RULE IF LAND OF VENDOR IS ISOLATED FROM THE HIGHWAY
> Indemnity included in the purchase pricethe buyer is the owner of the dominant estate

Art. 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the grantor that becomes isolated, he
may demand a right of way after paying a indemnity. However, the donor shall not be liable for
indemnity. (n)
RULES IF GRANTOR OR GRANTEES LAND IS ENCLOSED
1. If the enclosing estate is that of the grantor, the grantee doesnt pay indemnity for the easement
2. If the enclosed estate is that of the grantor, the grantor must pay indemnity
Art. 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the owner
of the dominant estate. A proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said owner
to the proprietor of the servient estate. (n)
OWNERSHIP OF, REPAIRS AND TAXES ON, THE PATH
1. Even though permanent, the path belongs to the servient estate, and he pays all the taxes
2. But the dominant estate
a. Should pay for repairs
b. Should pay proportionate share of taxes to the servient estate
Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be necessary because its owner
has joined it to another abutting on a public road, the owner of the servient estate MAY DEMAND
that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have received by way of indemnity. The
interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement. The
same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving access to the isolated estate. In both
cases, the public highway must substantially meet the needs of the dominant estate in order that the
easement may be extinguished. (568a)
CAUSES FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. Opening of a new road
2. Joining the dominant estate to another
EXTINGUISHMENT NOT AUTOMATIC
> The extinguishment is not automatic
> The law says that the servient estate may demand
> It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the easement remains and he has no duty to refund
the indemnity
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE TO A VOLUNTARY EASEMENT NO RETURN OF
INDEMNITY IN CASE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT
Art. 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or
beautification of a building, to carry materials through the estate of another, or to raise
therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of such estate shall be
obliged to permit the act, after receiving payment of the proper indemnity for the damage
caused him. (569a)
TEMPORARY EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY
1. The easement here is necessarily only temporary, nonetheless proper indemnity must be given
2. Indispensable is not to be construed literally
3. The owner can make use of Article 656
Art. 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock known as animal path,
animal trail or any other, and those for watering places, resting places and animal folds, shall
be governed by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence thereof,
by the usages and customs of the place. Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the
animal path shall not exceed in any case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail that of
37 meters and 50 centimeters. Whenever it is necessary to establish a compulsory easement of
the right of way or for a watering place for animals, the provisions of this Section and those
of Articles 640 and 641 shall be observed. In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters.
(570a)

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK: WIDTH

1. Animal path75 meters
2. Animal trail37 meters and 50 centimeters
3. Cattle10 meters

To be entitled to an easement of right of way, the following requisites should be met:

1. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no
adequate outlet to a public highway;
2. There is payment of proper indemnity;
3. The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate;
and
4. The right of way claimed is 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.
It must be stressed that, by its very nature, and when considered with reference to the obligations
imposed on the servient estate, an easement involves an abnormal restriction on the property rights
of the servient owner and is regarded as a charge or encumbrance on the servient estate. It is
incumbent upon the owner of the dominant estate to establish by clear and convincing evidence the
presence of all the preconditions before his claim for easement of right of way may be granted.
(CRISPIN DICHOSO, JR. vs PATROCINIO L. MARCOS, G.R. No. 180282)
Thus, in Cristobal v. CA,[22] the Court disallowed the easement prayed for because an outlet
already exists which is a path walk located at the left side of petitioners property and which is
connected to a private road about five hundred (500) meters long. The private road, in turn, leads to
Ma. Elena Street, which is about 2.5 meters wide, and finally, to Visayas Avenue. This outlet was
determined by the Court to be sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate.
Also in Floro v. Llenado,[23] we refused to impose a right of way over petitioners property
although private respondents alternative route was admittedly inconvenient because he had to
traverse several ricelands and rice paddies belonging to different persons, not to mention that said
passage is impassable during the rainy season.
And in Ramos v. Gatchalian Realty, Inc.,[24] this Court refused to grant the easement prayed
for even if petitioner had to pass through lots belonging to other owners, as temporary ingress and
egress, which lots were grassy, cogonal, and greatly inconvenient due to flood and mud because
such grant would run counter to the prevailing jurisprudence that mere convenience for the
dominant estate does not suffice to serve as basis for the easement.