I. Why this issue matters

Roads exist for movement, access, safety, and public order. When a person strings barbed wire, builds a fence, sets up posts, plants structures, or otherwise occupies any portion of a road or its right-of-way, the harm is rarely “private.” It can block emergency response, force pedestrians onto live traffic lanes, reduce sightlines, cause accidents, and disrupt the public’s right to pass.

In Philippine law, the analysis usually turns on four questions:

Is the way a public road/highway or a private road?
Where is the road right-of-way (ROW), road lot, shoulder, sidewalk, or easement boundary?
Does the fence/barbed wire encroach into that public domain or into an established public easement?
What remedies are available—administrative, civil, and potentially criminal—and where should the complaint be filed?

This article maps the legal framework and practical complaint routes in Philippine settings.

II. What counts as a “public highway/road” in Philippine law

A. Roads as property of public dominion

Under the Civil Code, roads are classic examples of property of public dominion—property intended for public use. Once a road is truly public (and not validly withdrawn from public use), it generally carries these consequences:

It is not for private appropriation while devoted to public use.
It is typically outside ordinary commerce (can’t be privately owned or fenced off by a private person as if purely private).
Prescription generally does not run against property of public dominion while it remains public.

This matters because many roadside fence disputes involve a private landowner insisting, “That road is part of my titled lot,” while long public use, government plans, or subdivision dedication indicate the opposite. If the area is public dominion (or burdened with a public easement), private fencing is legally vulnerable.

B. National roads vs. local roads

Practical enforcement often depends on the road’s classification:

National roads/highways are generally under the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (with traffic enforcement shared with other agencies).
Provincial, city, municipal, and barangay roads are generally under local government units (LGUs)—through the city/municipal engineering office, local building official, and local chief executive’s general welfare and regulatory powers.

Even if a road is “local,” the public’s right to pass remains central; the responsible authority shifts.

C. How a road becomes public

A road may be public by:

Law or official creation (e.g., road constructed by government, opened by ordinance/resolution, or included in approved plans).
Acquisition of ROW/road lot (purchase, donation, expropriation; for national government projects, processes are governed by statutes such as the Right-of-Way Act for national infrastructure).
Subdivision development and dedication: roads in a subdivision are typically reserved for common/public use as part of planning approvals; depending on the arrangement, roads may be donated to government or remain under regulated common use, but they are not freely fenceable if they function as public access.
Implied dedication and acceptance / long public use: Philippine doctrine recognizes situations where land is devoted to public use as a roadway and accepted through actual use and governmental acts. Evidence becomes critical here.

D. When a “public road” stops being public

A public road does not become private merely because it was neglected, narrowed, or informally occupied. Typically, formal closure or withdrawal from public use is required (often by LGU action for local roads, subject to legal requirements), and even then the legal consequences can be technical. Without lawful closure, fencing a roadway is usually treated as an unlawful encroachment or nuisance.

III. The road right-of-way (ROW) and “easements” in road obstruction disputes

People often use “easement” loosely. In road cases, three concepts are commonly mixed:

A. The road lot / ROW as a government interest

A road right-of-way can exist because the government owns the road lot or has otherwise legally acquired the strip needed for the road. If your fence is inside that ROW, removal is typically straightforward.

For national government projects, the Right-of-Way Act (RA 10752) (and implementing rules) governs acquisition (negotiated sale, donation, expropriation), valuation, and procedures. While RA 10752 is not “an anti-fence law,” it matters because it defines how ROW is established and documented—documents you may need when proving encroachment.

B. A public easement of passage

Even where title questions are messy, the law can recognize a public easement—a legally protected right of the public to pass—based on dedication, acceptance, and long public use. A fence or barbed wire that blocks a public easement can still be actionable even if ownership is disputed.

C. The Civil Code easement of right-of-way (for “isolated” property)

The Civil Code (notably Articles 649–657) provides an easement of right-of-way in favor of an owner whose property is surrounded and lacks adequate outlet to a public highway—this is typically a private easement demanded from neighboring owners, subject to indemnity and placement rules.

This is different from “public road obstruction,” but it appears in disputes when:

a landowner blocks a path and the affected party argues they are entitled to a right-of-way; or
the blocking party claims the path is merely a demanded private easement, not a public road.

Key distinction: A public highway serves the general public; a private right-of-way serves particular dominant estates. The evidence and remedies differ.

IV. What counts as an unlawful “obstruction” or encroachment along a public highway

Obstruction is not limited to walls across the carriageway. It can include any intrusion into areas devoted to road use or safety.

A. Common forms

Fences/walls extending into the roadway, shoulder, sidewalk, or drainage line
Barbed wire stretched along or across access points, sidewalks, or pathways used by pedestrians
Gates that block a public road or restrict passage without lawful authority
Posts, bollards, plant boxes, and private “barriers” placed on sidewalks/shoulders
Sheds, stalls, signboards, and private parking that occupy public road space
Construction materials dumped on sidewalks/roads without permits and safety controls
Vegetation (e.g., hedges, trees) intentionally placed to narrow a public way or block visibility

B. Encroachment vs. danger

Legally, two overlapping theories often apply:

Encroachment on public dominion / public ROW: the structure is in a place reserved for public use.
Nuisance / hazard: even if technically on private property, the barbed wire or fence is positioned so that it endangers or interferes with the public (e.g., overhangs, protrusions, sharp barbs reachable from the sidewalk, or visibility obstructions at intersections).

V. Barbed wire fences: when they become legally problematic

Barbed wire raises special concerns because it is both a barrier and a dangerous instrumentality.

A. Generally permissible uses (with major caveats)

A landowner may secure property with fencing, even with barbed wire, within the true property line and not within public ROW, provided it complies with:

Building and zoning regulations (permits for fences, height restrictions, setbacks, safety rules, and local ordinances)
Public safety requirements (no protrusions that endanger passersby, no obstruction of sightlines)

B. Common illegal/problematic scenarios

Barbed wire placed on the sidewalk, shoulder, or road ROW
Barbed wire stretched across a path the public uses, especially where the path functions as a public road/access
Barbed wire installed at a height/placement that can injure pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists who must pass near it
Barbed wire used to “privatize” access to what is functionally a public road, beach access, riverbank path, or barangay road
“Boundary disputes disguised as security”—where the fence is a tactic to claim land that is actually part of an established public way

C. Civil liability for injuries and damages

If barbed wire causes injury, the fence owner may face civil liability under quasi-delict principles (Civil Code Article 2176), and potentially related provisions on negligence, damages, and vicarious liability (e.g., Article 2180 for employers/parents/guardians in proper cases).

Even absent injury, obstructing access can support claims for:

Injunction (to stop the obstruction)
Abatement of nuisance (to remove it)
Actual damages if a business or property owner can prove quantifiable loss caused by the blockage
Moral/exemplary damages in egregious, bad-faith cases (fact-specific)

VI. Nuisance law: a powerful framework for roadside obstructions

The Civil Code’s nuisance provisions (Articles 694–707) are often central.

A. Public nuisance vs. private nuisance

A public nuisance affects a community or considerable number of persons (e.g., blocking a public road, placing hazards on sidewalks).
A private nuisance affects a particular person or a small group (e.g., blocking only one household’s access by encroaching on a private right-of-way).

B. Remedies under nuisance law

Depending on the circumstances:

Administrative action by the LGU/DPWH to remove/clear
Civil action for abatement and/or injunction
Damages if loss is proven
In limited circumstances, abatement by a private person may be discussed in the Civil Code—but it is high-risk in practice because improper self-help can trigger criminal complaints (malicious mischief), civil liability, or escalation. As a rule, use lawful channels unless the situation is truly urgent and clearly a nuisance, and even then proceed carefully.

VII. Which government office has authority to act

A. DPWH (usually for national roads)

If the obstruction is on a national highway or within its ROW, the DPWH district engineering office is commonly the frontline. They can inspect, issue notices, coordinate removal, and document ROW boundaries.

B. LGUs (usually for local roads; often even for national road issues in practice)

LGUs regulate:

sidewalk clearing and road use,
building/fence permits through the local building official,
and public safety under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

The city/municipal engineering office and the local building official can be critical for confirming encroachment and permit violations.

C. Barangay

Barangays can:

facilitate initial mediation,
document community impact,
and coordinate with city/municipal authorities.

However, barangays generally do not replace DPWH/LGU engineers for technical ROW determinations.

D. MMDA (Metro Manila)

In Metro Manila, the MMDA has a well-known role in traffic management and clearing operations; it often coordinates with LGUs and DPWH depending on the road.

VIII. How to determine whether the fence/barbed wire is actually on the public road/ROW

This is where many complaints succeed or fail.

A. Useful documents and evidence

Photos/videos showing location, measurements, and how passage is blocked
Sketch map and landmarks (nearest intersections, house numbers)
Title (TCT/OCT) and tax declaration of the suspected encroaching property (if available)
Approved subdivision plan, road lot plans, or development permits (for subdivision roads)
Parcellary survey / ROW plans (common in DPWH projects)
Certification from the city/municipal engineer or DPWH identifying the road and ROW boundary
Geodetic engineer survey if boundaries are disputed or if an injunction case is contemplated
Affidavits from long-time residents showing long public use (helpful for public easement/dedication arguments)

B. Practical tip: separate the “is it public?” issue from the “is it within ROW?” issue

A path can be public yet the ROW line can be disputed. Or the ROW can be clear while ownership claims remain. Complaints become stronger when both are documented: public character + encroachment.

IX. Complaint pathways and legal remedies

A. Administrative / executive remedies (often the fastest)

1) Write a complaint/request for inspection and clearing Address it to the correct authority:

DPWH District Engineer (national road/ROW)
City/Municipal Engineer and/or Local Building Official (local road; fence permit/encroachment issues)
Mayor’s Office / Public Safety / Traffic Office (for enforcement coordination)

Include:

exact location,
photos,
description of obstruction and hazards,
how it affects the public (pedestrians forced into traffic; emergency vehicles blocked; etc.),
request for inspection and issuance of an order to remove.

2) Permit and ordinance enforcement If the fence/barbed wire was built without proper permits or violates setbacks/road encroachment rules, the local building official can issue notices and enforcement actions.

3) Road clearing operations LGUs may conduct clearing under local ordinances and national directives, but success depends on documentation and political/operational realities.

B. Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Barangay conciliation is often required for certain disputes between residents of the same city/municipality as a precondition to filing certain court actions.

But there are notable exceptions, and obstruction of a public road can involve:

government parties,
urgent need for injunctive relief,
broader public interests beyond a “private dispute,”

so barangay processes may be limited or not required depending on the case. Practically, barangay documentation can still be useful even when not strictly mandatory.

C. Civil court actions

1) Injunction (with possible TRO) If the obstruction is ongoing and causes irreparable injury or serious safety risk, an injunction case can seek:

immediate restraint (TRO),
and eventual removal/cessation.

2) Action to abate nuisance Where the obstruction is framed as a public/private nuisance, the plaintiff may seek abatement and damages.

3) Damages If provable losses exist (e.g., blocked access to a business, forced detours causing measurable costs), damages can be claimed, but proof is essential.

4) Quieting of title / boundary disputes If the dispute is fundamentally about whether the road is part of a titled lot, title-related actions may appear—but note: courts generally do not favor private claims over property of public dominion.

D. Criminal and ordinance-based enforcement (fact-dependent)

Obstructions may be penalized under:

local ordinances (common and practical),
and potentially special laws addressing obstruction of public ways.

Additionally, if someone is injured due to hazardous barbed wire placement, other criminal theories (often involving negligence or imprudence depending on the facts) may come into play. The exact charge depends heavily on the evidence and local enforcement.

X. Common defenses raised by fence owners—and how they are evaluated

Defense 1: “This is my titled property.”

A title is strong evidence of ownership, but it is not absolute against:

property of public dominion, and
areas validly reserved/dedicated for road use.

If the disputed strip is legally a road or within ROW, the private title claim may be defeated or require correction proceedings.

Defense 2: “The road is private; people are just passing there.”

Courts and agencies examine:

official maps/plans,
subdivision approvals,
long public use,
governmental maintenance/repair,
and whether the public was invited or allowed as of right.

Defense 3: “I installed it for security; it’s not blocking anyone.”

Even partial narrowing, sidewalk blockage, forced detours, or hazardous proximity can still be actionable—especially when the public is exposed to harm.

Defense 4: “The LGU/DPWH allowed it.”

A permit or tolerance rarely legalizes an encroachment into public dominion. Agencies generally cannot validly authorize private occupation of property devoted to public use without lawful basis. Still, documentation matters; some conflicts arise from ambiguous ROW boundaries or historical errors.

XI. Practical, Philippines-specific guidance for handling these cases

A. Build your case like an engineer and like a lawyer

Engineer side: establish the ROW and physical encroachment (survey, plans, measurements, photos).
Law side: establish public character (public use, official acts, nuisance/hazard, and public interest).

B. Use safety language

Authorities act faster when the complaint highlights:

pedestrian danger,
emergency access,
blind corners,
school routes,
disaster response routes,
and documented near-misses.

C. Avoid risky self-help removal

Even if you believe the fence is illegal, physically removing barbed wire yourself can escalate into:

criminal complaints against you,
civil liability,
or community conflict.

Administrative clearing with documentation is usually safer and more durable.

XII. Model outline for a written complaint (adapt as needed)

Subject: Request for Inspection and Removal of Obstruction (Barbed Wire Fence) Along [Road Name/Location]

Complainant details (name, address, contact)
Exact location (barangay, street, landmarks, GPS pin if available)
Description of obstruction (barbed wire fence, length, height, whether on sidewalk/shoulder/carriageway)
Public impact (blocked passage, forced detours, hazard to pedestrians/vehicles, emergency access)
Evidence attached (photos, video screenshots, sketch map, witness statements, any plans/certifications)
Requested action
- inspection and determination of ROW/encroachment,
- issuance of notice/order to remove,
- clearing/removal within a specified time,
- and enforcement of applicable regulations/ordinances.
Signature and date

XIII. Bottom line

In the Philippines, barbed wire fences and similar barriers become legally vulnerable when they intrude into a public road or its ROW, block a public easement of passage, or operate as a nuisance/hazard to the public. The strongest outcomes typically come from combining (1) technical proof of encroachment and (2) clear framing of public safety and public use, then pursuing DPWH/LGU administrative enforcement and, when necessary, civil injunctive or nuisance actions.