The obstruction of a legal right of way (serbitud de paso or easement of right of way under Philippine law) is one of the most common real property disputes in the country, especially in rural and suburban areas where lots have become landlocked because of subdivision, sale, or inheritance.

This article consolidates the present state of Philippine law (Civil Code, Rules of Court, and Supreme Court jurisprudence as of December 2025) on the subject.

1. Legal Basis of the Easement of Right of Way

The easement of right of way is governed primarily by Articles 649–657 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386).

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.

Requisites for a compulsory right of way (repeatedly upheld in hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, e.g., Costabella Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 80511, January 25, 1991; Ramos v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 222065, October 13, 2021):

The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway (isolation or landlocked status);
There is payment of proper indemnity;
The isolation was not due to the owner’s own acts (no self-created landlocked situation);
The right of way demanded is the shortest distance and causes the least prejudice to the servient estate.

Types of right of way recognized:

Compulsory (legal or compulsory easement) – Arts. 649-657
Voluntary – constituted by contract or will
Apparent or non-apparent
Continuous or discontinuous

2. What Constitutes “Obstruction” of a Right of Way?

Obstruction occurs when the owner of the servient estate (or any person) prevents, hinders, or impairs the use of the existing or legally constituted right of way. Examples repeatedly declared unlawful by the Supreme Court:

Erecting fences, walls, gates, or any permanent structure
Padlocking a gate across the passageway
Parking vehicles permanently to block passage
Digging trenches or placing boulders
Planting trees or crops that encroach on the width
Constructing buildings or portions thereof on the easement
Installing speed bumps without consent that effectively prevent passage of vehicles

Even partial obstruction that renders the easement inadequate for the needs of the dominant estate is actionable (Flordeliza v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 229357, July 24, 2019).

3. Legal Remedies Available to the Dominant Owner

The aggrieved owner of the dominant estate has several concurrent remedies:

A. Civil Action for Injunction with Damages (Primary Remedy)

Filed in the Regional Trial Court (regardless of value because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation – Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules of Court; B.P. 129 as amended)
May pray for:
- Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) / Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (to immediately remove the obstruction)
- Permanent Injunction
- Damages (actual, moral, exemplary, attorney’s fees)
- Removal of the obstructing structure at the expense of the defendant

Leading cases:

Abellana v. Ferraren (G.R. No. 206112, March 9, 2016) – removal of gate and fence ordered
Heirs of Medrano v. CA (G.R. No. 165889, August 11, 2010) – padlocked gate constitutes obstruction

B. Accion Publiciana or Reinvidicatory Action (if possession is lost)

If the obstruction effectively dispossesses the dominant owner of the use of the easement, an action to recover possession (accion publiciana) may be filed.

C. Criminal Action for Malicious Mischief (Art. 327, Revised Penal Code)

If the obstruction involves destruction of property (e.g., cutting a fence that forms part of the dominant owner’s own improvement), it may constitute malicious mischief.

More commonly, however, it is prosecuted under:

D. Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 – Penalizing Obstruction of Justice / Apprehended Persons

Rarely used in pure civil easement cases.

E. Anti-Fencing Law / Violation of Local Ordinances

If the obstruction involves illegal fencing of public roads or easements, local government units may file administrative cases or demolition proceedings.

F. Administrative Complaint before the Barangay (Mandatory Barangay Conciliation)

All disputes between parties residing in the same barangay or adjacent barangays must first undergo barangay conciliation (Sec. 412, Local Government Code). Failure to file a case within two (2) years from the obstruction may prescribe the civil action for injunction in some jurisdictions (controversial; prescription is generally 10 years for actions on written contracts or legal easements).

4. Prescription and Laches

The easement of right of way itself is imprescriptible as long as the requisites under Art. 649 exist (Ramos v. Gatchalian, 2021).
The action to enforce the easement or remove obstruction prescribes in ten (10) years reckoned from the date the obstruction is committed (Art. 1144, Civil Code; Ronquillo v. Mariscal, G.R. No. 203124, June 27, 2018).
Extinctive prescription begins to run not from the constitution of the easement but from the time the obstruction is positively made by the servient owner.

Laches may bar the action if the dominant owner sleeps on his rights for an unreasonable period (Villanueva v. Castaneda, G.R. No. L-31895, March 31, 1988).

5. Special Rules on Width and Use

Minimum legal width: 2 meters for persons, higher if for vehicles (jurisprudence varies from 3 to 5 meters depending on the needs of the dominant estate – Cristobal v. CA, G.R. No. 125323, June 22, 1998).
The dominant owner may construct a road or passageway at his own expense, including necessary improvements (bridges, drainage, pavement).
The servient owner cannot demand relocation unless the original path becomes impassable or extremely prejudicial.

6. Remedies of the Servient Owner

The servient owner is not entirely helpless:

He may demand indemnity (value of land occupied + damages).
He may ask the court to fix an alternative route that is shorter or less prejudicial (Art. 650).
If the dominant estate is subdivided, the easement persists but the servient owner may demand proportional reduction or additional indemnity.

7. Recent Supreme Court Pronouncements (2020–2025)

Heirs of Sandejas v. Heirs of Lacson (G.R. No. 225180, October 13, 2021) – reiterated that a registered voluntary easement cannot be extinguished by non-user alone.
Spouses Reyes v. Spouses Tan (G.R. No. 222065, October 13, 2021) – padlocking a gate installed by the servient owner across a compulsory right of way is unlawful.
Valderrama v. Republic (G.R. No. 242213, November 11, 2020) – government may be compelled to grant right of way if a private estate is landlocked by public land.

8. Practical Procedure to Remove Obstruction (Step-by-Step)

Demand letter (preferably notarized) to remove obstruction within reasonable period (7–15 days).
Barangay conciliation (mandatory).
File verified Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for TRO/Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in the RTC.
Raffle → 72-hour TRO possible → hearing for 20-day Preliminary Injunction → trial on the merits.
Judgment ordering removal + damages enforceable by break-open order if necessary.

In extremely urgent cases (imminent irreparable injury), an ex parte 72-hour TRO may be issued even without notice if the complaint sufficiently shows entitlement.

The obstruction of a legally constituted right of way is a continuing nuisance and a clear violation of property rights under the Civil Code. Philippine courts have consistently protected the dominant owner’s right of passage, often issuing mandatory injunctions for the immediate removal of obstructions, with the full coercive power of the State behind the dominant owner once a favorable judgment becomes final.