(Philippine legal article; general information, not legal advice)

1) Start with the uncomfortable truth: “prescriptive right of way” is usually a contradiction

Many people use the phrase “prescriptive right of way” to mean: “We’ve been passing there for decades, so we already have the right.” In Philippine civil law, however, that claim is often legally weak because of how the Civil Code classifies easements.

Easements and prescription (core concept)

Under the Civil Code, only continuous and apparent easements may generally be acquired by prescription (the classic example: an apparent drainage canal that continuously carries water). Discontinuous easements—those exercised only when a person does an act (like walking or driving through a path)—are not typically acquired by prescription.

Where “right of way” falls

A right of way (a path you use to cross another’s land) is generally treated as a discontinuous easement because it is exercised only when someone passes through. That is why, in most situations, you cannot acquire a right of way by prescription no matter how long you used it—especially if the use began by tolerance or permission.

Practical consequence: Most disputes framed as “prescriptive right of way” actually end up being resolved (if at all) under legal easement of right of way (for landlocked property) or under contract/voluntary easement, not true prescription.

So where does compensation come in? Almost always from the legal easement framework.

2) The main legal framework that triggers compensation: Legal Easement of Right of Way

The Civil Code recognizes a legal easement of right of way when a property is without adequate access to a public road. The owner of the “dominant estate” (the landlocked property) may demand passage through the “servient estate” (the neighbor’s land), but must pay indemnity.

Basic requirements (in plain terms)

A legal right of way is typically granted when:

The property has no adequate outlet to a public highway (or access is extremely difficult/insufficient for normal use), and
The claimant is willing to pay proper indemnity, and
The route chosen meets the Civil Code standards (shortest route, least prejudice).

Important: The law does not guarantee the route you want; it aims to balance necessity and fairness.

3) What “reasonable compensation” means in a right of way case

Philippine law uses the term “proper indemnity” rather than “rent” or “toll.” The idea is: you are imposing a real burden on someone else’s property, so you must pay for what you take and the harm you cause.

A. Two compensation models: permanent vs. temporary right of way

Under the Civil Code rules on right of way indemnity, compensation depends on whether the passage is permanent or temporary:

1) Permanent easement (most common for driveway/road access)

You pay:

The value of the land actually occupied by the easement area (the strip used as the path), plus
Damages to the servient estate (e.g., destroyed crops, loss of productive use, cost of relocating fences, safety/security costs, diminution in value to the remaining property if proven).

Think of it as paying for:

the “corridor” you will permanently burden, and
the measurable losses caused by the burden.

2) Temporary easement (limited-time passage)

You pay:

Damages only, because you are not permanently taking/encumbering a defined strip in the same way.

Temporary can apply in special situations (e.g., access during construction) but it’s fact-specific.

4) How courts typically assess “value” and “damages” (what makes compensation “reasonable”)

“Reasonable compensation” is usually built from evidence, not sentiment. Courts look for objective anchors.

A. Valuing the land occupied by the easement

Common valuation references include:

Fair market value (often supported by appraisal, comparable sales, tax declarations, assessor’s schedules)
BIR zonal value (often used as a reference point, though not always controlling)
Independent appraisal reports (especially where stakes are high)

Key idea: You are not buying the entire land—only imposing an encumbrance on a defined portion. But because it burdens ownership, courts take the valuation seriously.

B. Damages (what can be included)

Damages may include, depending on proof:

Crop/harvest loss and disturbance costs
Cost to move or rebuild improvements (fences, walls, irrigation lines) affected by the path
Loss of productive use (if the strip previously generated income)
Diminution in value of the remaining property (requires credible proof; not automatic)
Restoration and safety measures (drainage, culverts, retaining walls) if needed due to the passage

What is not automatically included:

Purely speculative claims (“I just feel it’s worth more.”)
Punitive amounts (unless tied to a separate actionable wrong)

C. Why “decades of use” doesn’t automatically reduce compensation

Even if you used a path for years, if it was by tolerance, the law does not treat that as a paid-up easement. Once the issue is formalized as a legal easement, proper indemnity is still required.

5) Route selection rules that affect compensation

Compensation and route are linked because the law requires the easement to be located where it is:

Shortest route to the public road, and
Least prejudicial to the servient estate

If two routes are possible:

A slightly longer route might be chosen if it causes far less damage.
A route that cuts through a house yard, business frontage, or highly improved area is usually disfavored if an alternative exists.

This matters because:

More prejudice = more damages (and higher overall indemnity)
Choosing the least prejudicial route can reduce disputes and total cost.

6) The special twist: If an easement were truly acquired by prescription, would compensation still be due?

As a general principle in property law: an easement acquired by prescription is acquired by lapse of time, not by payment. If an easement is validly acquired by prescription, it typically does not require indemnity because it is treated as having been legally established over time.

But remember the earlier point: right of way is generally not prescriptible because it is discontinuous. So in the usual “we’ve used it forever” scenario, the case tends to shift to:

legal easement of right of way (with indemnity), or
voluntary easement (price/terms by agreement), or
a finding that use was merely tolerated (no vested right).

7) Voluntary easement (contract): the easiest place to define “reasonable”

Many neighbors settle right of way issues by contract—and this is often the most practical route if relations are workable.

In a voluntary easement agreement, “reasonable compensation” can be structured as:

One-time payment (lump sum for the encumbered strip + disturbance)
Annual fee (less ideal legally for a true easement; more like a lease/license structure)
Hybrid (lump sum + cost-sharing for road improvements/maintenance)

A well-drafted agreement should specify:

exact metes and bounds (survey plan)
permitted users (owner, tenants, successors)
permitted use (pedestrian only vs vehicle; hours; type of vehicles)
maintenance obligations and cost sharing
gates/security rules
liability/insurance allocation
registration and annotation on title (to bind successors)

8) Procedure: How compensation is raised and fixed in real disputes

A. Negotiation stage (recommended)

Survey the proposed strip
Obtain valuation/appraisal and list of affected improvements
Offer a written indemnity proposal
Document access necessity (why your property is effectively landlocked)

B. If filed in court

The court commonly:

Determines whether a legal right of way exists (necessity)
Determines the most appropriate location (shortest/least prejudice)
Fixes proper indemnity based on evidence
Orders the easement established upon payment/consignation as directed

C. Payment mechanics

Often, the right to use the established easement is conditioned on:

payment of indemnity, or
deposit/consignation (placing the amount with the court) if the servient owner refuses to receive it

9) Practical indicators of “reasonable” vs. “unreasonable” compensation

Likely reasonable (fact-dependent)

Market-supported value for the affected strip
Clear itemization of damages with receipts/estimates
Payment for actual disturbance and proven depreciation
A route that avoids highly improved areas

Red flags / likely challenged

Compensation set arbitrarily without basis
Demanding payment as if the whole property were purchased
Using the easement dispute to force a sale or to block access purely to extract an excessive price
Refusing any route even when landlocked necessity is clear (courts dislike bad faith)

10) Common misconceptions (quick corrections)

“Ten years of use means it’s mine.” Not for right of way in most cases; long use is often mere tolerance.
“Right of way is free because it’s a legal right.” A legal right of way is conditioned on payment of proper indemnity.
“Compensation is always monthly rent.” Not the default. Legal easement indemnity is typically lump-sum land value + damages (permanent) or damages only (temporary).
“I can choose the path I like.” The law prioritizes shortest and least prejudicial—not preference.

11) A workable way to think about the math (conceptual only)

For a permanent right of way, parties often converge on this structure:

Indemnity = (FMV per sqm × easement area) + proven damages + necessary mitigation/restoration costs

Where “proven damages” could include:

lost crops, removed improvements, relocation, drainage works, etc.

Courts won’t accept “soft” numbers; they want proof.

12) Bottom line

In Philippine practice, “prescriptive right of way” claims are usually better reframed as either:

Legal easement of right of way (necessity + route rules + proper indemnity), or
Voluntary easement (contractual compensation),

because a true prescriptive acquisition of a right of way is typically barred by the Civil Code’s treatment of right of way as a discontinuous easement.

If you want, I can also provide:

a checklist of documents/evidence commonly used to prove landlocked necessity and compute indemnity, or
a sample annotated outline for a Right of Way Easement Agreement (Philippine-style clauses, plain English).