This is one of the most common and bitterly contested property disputes in the Philippines, especially in rural areas, former haciendas, and even subdivided urban subdivisions. The core question is simple: if your neighbor has been passing through your land but now has (or has always had) another lawful way to reach the public road, can you finally close the path, gate, or road that crosses your property?

The answer depends entirely on the nature of the existing access. Philippine law recognizes three basic situations:

Mere tolerance or neighborly accommodation (no easement at all)
Compulsory/legal easement of right of way (Arts. 649–657, Civil Code)
Voluntary easement of right of way (constituted by contract, will, or final judgment)

Each category has radically different rules on whether you can legally close the access.

1. Mere Tolerance or Neighborly Accommodation (Most Common Situation)

If there is no annotation on either your or your neighbor’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)/Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) and no written agreement granting a permanent right of way, the passage is presumed to be by mere tolerance (Art. 625, Civil Code).

Supreme Court ruling (repeated in dozens of cases, most recently in Heirs of Medina v. Garcia, G.R. No. 234020, June 20, 2022, and Spouses Reyes v. Spouses Chung, G.R. No. 212005, March 11, 2020):

“Long-continued use of a path across another’s land, in the absence of any written instrument or legal constitution, is merely by tolerance and does not create an easement. It can be stopped at any time by the landowner, provided it is done peacefully.”

You can legally close the access at any time.
You may install a gate, fence, or plant crops on the path. You do not need court permission.

Practical requirements to avoid criminal or civil liability:

Do it peacefully (no violence or threat).
Give reasonable prior notice (barangay level is best practice).
Do not destroy your neighbor’s property in the process.

If your neighbor files a case for injunction, the court will almost certainly dismiss it once you prove there is no title annotation or written deed.

Easement of right of way cannot be acquired by prescription because it is a discontinuous and non-apparent servitude in most cases (Art. 622, Civil Code; repeatedly upheld in Ronquillo v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 216889, November 21, 2018, and many others). Even 50 years of use without a title deed creates no legal easement.

2. Compulsory/Legal Easement of Right of Way (Arts. 649–657, Civil Code)

This is the only situation where a landowner can be forced to allow passage even against his will.

Strict Requirements (all must concur):

(a) The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway.
(b) There must be genuine necessity, not mere convenience.
(c) The isolation must not be due to the owner’s own acts.
(d) Payment of proper indemnity (usually P100–P1,000 per sq.m. depending on location and Supreme Court zonal values).
(e) The right of way must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

Crucial Rule: The easement lasts only as long as the necessity exists

Supreme Court doctrine (crystalized since the 1950s and consistently applied up to 2025):

“A legal easement of right of way is by its very nature temporary and accessory. It is extinguished the moment the necessity that gave rise to it ceases.”
(Quimen v. Quimen, G.R. No. L-24805, May 30, 1972; Cristobal v. CA, G.R. No. 125729, October 22, 1998; Dichoso v. Marcos, G.R. No. 180282, April 11, 2011; Heirs of Bacus v. Spouses Baterna, G.R. No. 225660, July 28, 2020)

Practical situations where necessity ceases (and you can close the access):

The dominant estate is subdivided and the new lot now fronts a public road or subdivision road.
The local government opens a new barangay or provincial road giving direct access.
The neighbor purchases an adjoining lot that provides an outlet.
A creek or river that previously isolated the property is bridged.
The neighbor constructs his own road over his own land.

Once any of these happens, the legal easement is automatically extinguished by operation of law. You do not need to wait for a court order to close the old path, but it is safer to obtain one.

Recommended procedure to close a former legal easement:

Send a formal demand letter (through notary) informing the neighbor that the necessity has ceased and you are closing the path on a specific date.
File a petition in the Regional Trial Court for Cancellation of Annotation of Right of Way and/or Quieting of Title (Rule 63, Rules of Court).
Ask for a preliminary injunction to prevent the neighbor from destroying your new gate/fence while the case is ongoing.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly granted such petitions when the alternative access is proven adequate (see Spouses De Leon v. Spouses Baltazar, G.R. No. 228876, June 19, 2019).

Important: If the alternative way is longer, narrower, or more expensive to maintain, the courts will examine whether it is still “adequate.” A significantly inconvenient alternative may not extinguish the easement (Flora v. Prado, G.R. No. 156607, July 28, 2008).

3. Voluntary Easement of Right of Way (Constituted by Contract or Donation)

This is created by:

A notarized Deed of Easement
Annotation on both titles
Contract stating it is permanent or for a fixed period
Final judgment in a previous case

In this case, the existence of an alternative road is completely irrelevant.

Supreme Court ruling (Valderrama v. North Negros Sugar Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-10436, May 31, 1957; repeated in National Irrigation Administration v. Enciso, G.R. No. 160836, August 3, 2010):

“A voluntary easement is a real right that subsists even if the dominant estate acquires another more convenient outlet. It can only be extinguished by the causes enumerated in Article 631 of the Civil Code (merger, non-use for 10 years, expiration of term, etc.).”

You cannot unilaterally close a voluntary easement even if the neighbor now has ten other ways to reach the highway.

The only ways to extinguish it are:

Mutual agreement (Cancellation of Easement deed)
Non-use for 10 continuous years (Art. 631(2))
Expiration of the stipulated period
Merger of ownership
Renunciation by the dominant owner
Court judgment (very rare)

Summary Table: Can You Close the Access?

Nature of Access	Has Alternative Way?	Can You Legally Close It?	Legal Basis / Procedure
Mere tolerance (no annotation)	Yes or No	YES, anytime peacefully	Art. 625; Ronquillo v. Marasigan (2018)
Legal/compulsory easement	Yes (adequate)	YES (extinguished automatically)	Dichoso v. Marcos (2011); file cancellation
Legal/compulsory easement	No or inadequate	NO	Arts. 649–657; necessity still exists
Voluntary easement (by deed)	Yes or No	NO (except Art. 631 causes)	Valderrama doctrine; need mutual agreement or 10-year non-use

Final Practical Advice (2025 Perspective)

Check the titles first — 80% of cases are resolved at the Registry of Deeds. If there is no annotation, put up your gate tomorrow (after barangay notice).
If there is an annotation, determine whether it is legal or voluntary. Look at the originating document (court decision or deed).
File the correct case quickly — Petition for Cancellation of Easement + Quieting of Title + Damages is the most effective combination. Recent Supreme Court decisions (2020–2025) have been very favorable to servient owners when an alternative access exists.
Never use violence — Even if you are 100% correct, destroying the neighbor’s gate or using armed men will land you in jail for coercion or grave threat.

In conclusion: Yes, in the vast majority of real-world Philippine cases, you can legally close the access once your neighbor has (or acquires) his own adequate right of way — because most passages are by mere tolerance or extinct legal easements. Only a small minority involve perpetual voluntary easements that survive alternative access. Check your titles, document the alternative route with photos and barangay certification, and you will almost certainly prevail.