Here’s a Philippine-context legal explainer on Right-of-Way (ROW) access—focusing on what a landowner (the “servient estate”) may and may not do to limit access, and what the landlocked neighbor (the “dominant estate”) can demand. I’ll cover the Civil Code rules, common court standards, money/width, gates and hours, relocation, maintenance, enforcement, and how easements end.

What a ROW easement is (and when it exists)

A right of way is a legal easement that lets an owner of a landlocked property (no adequate outlet to a public road) pass through a neighboring land to reach the highway.
It is not automatic: the dominant owner must show necessity, pay indemnity, and the ROW must be laid where it causes the least prejudice and shortest path to a public road (Civil Code on easements).

Adequate outlet ≠ mere footpath. “Adequate” is practical for the property’s use and purpose (e.g., a farm or residence may reasonably need vehicular access). A steep, flood-prone, or unsafe trail may be deemed inadequate.

The landowner’s (servient estate’s) power to limit access—what’s allowed vs. not allowed

1) Choose the location (initially)

Allowed: If several routes are possible, the servient owner may designate the route that is least prejudicial to him and reasonably serviceable for the neighbor.
Not allowed: Picking a route that is impracticable (e.g., through a ravine, active fishpond, or places that would make passage unsafe or useless) just to frustrate access.

2) Keep the passage to the minimum necessary (width & use)

Width must be “sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate.” Start with the narrowest that works; widen only if needs make it reasonably necessary (e.g., ambulance access, delivery vehicles).
Vehicle type/weight limits: Allowed if based on legitimate safety or structural limits (e.g., farm bridge load), not as a pretext to block normal use.

3) Gates, fences, security

Allowed: The servient owner may put gates or fences for security or to control animals if (a) they do not obstruct passage and (b) the dominant owner has keys/codes or a 24/7 workable means of entry.
Not allowed: Locking the gate without providing access, installing obstacles (bollards, chains, spikes) that materially hinder the easement, or imposing arbitrary hours that defeat reasonable use (e.g., “closed at 7 p.m.” for a residential ROW that needs day-night access).

4) Relocation right (move the ROW later)

Allowed: The servient owner may relocate the ROW at his expense if the original route becomes more burdensome and an equally convenient alternative exists for the dominant owner.
Not allowed: Unilateral relocation that worsens access or interrupts use (move first, make continuous access available, then close the old route).

5) Ordinary use of the servient land

Allowed: The servient owner may continue farming, grazing, building, etc., so long as these acts do not impair the ROW.
Not allowed: Parking equipment on the lane, planting hedges that narrow the passage, or stockpiling materials that render it unsafe.

6) Hours of use / scheduling

Generally not allowed to fix restrictive hours for a necessary ROW. Reasonable, case-specific coordination (e.g., brief closures for harvest, with detour or notice) may be tolerated if temporary and non-obstructive.

7) Fees and tolls

Not allowed: Charging recurring “tolls” or monthly “access fees.”
Allowed: A one-time indemnity (see below) and actual damage compensation for specific harms (e.g., ruts after heavy construction).

8) Signage & safety rules

Allowed: Posting speed limits, “no smoking,” or safety rules tied to real risks (e.g., fuel tanks, animals, school).
Not allowed: Weaponizing rules to discourage lawful use (e.g., “5 km/h and horn every 5 meters” with no safety basis).

The dominant estate’s rights (to counter over-limiting)

Necessity beats convenience: If truly landlocked, the dominant estate is entitled to a ROW.
Shortest + least prejudice: Courts marry these: pick the nearest public road at a point least prejudicial to the servient owner.
Sufficient width for the use: If a home reasonably needs car access, a vehicular width can be awarded.
Continuity: Daily, year-round usability; a passage that’s only usable in dry months is often inadequate.
No harassment: Servient owner may not harass, threaten, or constantly interfere; repeated obstruction can lead to damages and injunction.

Money: indemnity and damages

Indemnity to servient owner (for a permanent ROW):
- Value of land occupied (area of the strip) plus
- Damages for injury to the remainder (e.g., severed fields, drainage impacts).
Temporary ROW (e.g., construction access): damages only for the period/impact.
Who pays maintenance? Usually the dominant owner, as the beneficiary; if both benefit, costs may be shared proportionately.
No monthly rent unless voluntarily agreed in a contractual easement (a legal ROW under the Code is a real right by law, not a lease).

Special angles that affect “limitations”

A) If the landlocked state is the owner’s own doing

If the dominant owner caused the landlocking (e.g., he sold off his frontage without keeping an access strip), a ROW can still be granted but:

Courts scrutinize route choice and indemnity more strictly; and
The owner cannot impose greater burden on neighbors if he can reasonably create access through his remaining land.

B) Multiple possible servient neighbors

Dominant owner cannot pick a longer or more harmful route merely because relations are better with one neighbor.
Servient owners may insist on the least-prejudicial route even if it means another neighbor bears the ROW.

C) Upgrading the width later

If use changes (e.g., a residence becomes a small clinic), an increase in width may be allowed only if necessary and with additional indemnity; otherwise, the servient owner can resist expansion beyond the originally granted need.

D) Structures under/over the ROW

Underground utilities or overhead lines require express consent/terms; a traffic ROW does not automatically include utility easements unless granted.

Procedure & enforcement (practical)

Try a written proposal (with sketch): include route, width, indemnity offer, and use rules (speed, gates).
Barangay conciliation (if both owners are individuals in the same city/municipality). Corporations or cross-city disputes may skip this.
Survey & valuation: get a licensed surveyor to plot the shortest/least-prejudicial line; get a valuation for the strip and potential damages.
File in court (Regional Trial Court): action to establish a legal easement of right of way, with support pendente lite (interim access order) if needed.
Injunctions: if the servient owner erects obstructions, ask for a temporary restraining order or preliminary mandatory injunction to reopen access while the case proceeds.
Writ execution & registration: if granted, pay indemnity against issuance of writ, have the easement annotated on both titles (dominant/servient) so it binds successors.

Self-help? Don’t bulldoze a path on your own. Courts frown on unilateral acts; you risk criminal/civil exposure.

Maintenance & behavior standards

Dominant owner: keeps the lane passable, repairs ordinary wear, manages drainage, and uses prudently (avoid needless damage, control dust/noise).
Servient owner: refrains from acts that impair the easement; coordinates for temporary closures only when truly necessary and with alternative passage or notice.
Both: act in good faith; document incidents and resolve small issues quickly to avoid contempt motions.

Ending or changing the easement

Necessity ceases: If the dominant property later gets adequate access (e.g., buys frontage, public road opens), the legal ROW extinguishes.
Merger: If one person becomes owner of both estates, the easement merges and ends.
Relocation: As above, servient owner can relocate upon providing an equally convenient substitute at his expense.
Abandonment/waiver: A voluntary, contractual ROW can end by express waiver; a legal ROW ends with cessation of necessity.
Non-use: Non-use rules mainly affect voluntary easements; the legal ROW follows the necessity test.

Contractual ROW vs. legal ROW (why it matters for limits)

Contractual (by deed): Parties can customize—hours, shared maintenance, speed limits, paving, lighting, apportionment of widening costs, rent (if they want), relocation triggers. Courts enforce their contract if lawful.
Legal (by court/law): Minimum necessary without frills; no recurring fees; limits must be reasonable and non-obstructive.

Quick checklists

For the servient owner (how to set lawful limits)

Pick the least-prejudicial, shortest route that still works.
Put gates if needed, but give keys/codes and keep 24/7 passability.
Set clear, safety-based rules (speed, weight) with signage.
Keep the lane unobstructed; schedule any closures with notice + short detours.
If burdensome, offer relocation to an equally convenient route at your expense.
Document damages (photos, dates) and bill actual repair costs—not “tolls.”

For the dominant owner (to resist over-limiting)

Bring a survey sketch proving shortest/least prejudice and a needs-based width.
Insist on keys/24-hour access if gated.
Offer indemnity (strip value + damages) up front; propose maintenance plan.
If blocked, seek injunction; avoid self-help.
Register the judgment annotation on titles.

Bottom line

In the Philippines, a landowner burdened by a legal right-of-way easement may regulate but not frustrate access. He can choose the route, install gates, impose reasonable safety limits, and relocate the lane at his expense—provided the passage remains continuous, safe, and sufficient for the dominant estate’s needs. The dominant owner must pay indemnity, maintain the lane, and use it prudently. When necessity ends, so does the legal ROW.

If you share your lot sketches, current path options, and the kind of vehicles that must pass, I can draft a route proposal (or counter-proposal) with a width/indemnity worksheet and a short draft agreement that captures the lawful limits.