RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH REDUCTION IN THE PHILIPPINES A Comprehensive Guide to the Legal Requirements
Prepared as a doctrinal article for lawyers, planners, and property owners
1. Scope of the Discussion
“Right-of-way” (ROW) in Philippine law has two broad manifestations:
- Public/right-of-way for roads, bridges and similar public works – the “road-right-of-way” (RROW) acquired or reserved by the national or local government.
- Private easement of right-of-way – the compulsory or voluntary servitude constituted over one parcel to allow access by another.
The legal rules on reducing the width vary depending on which of these two situations applies. The discussion below treats them separately, then lays out common procedural features.
PART I – PUBLIC ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAY
2. Statutory & Administrative Sources
| Source | Key Provisions on Width | Reduction Rule / Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Republic Act No. 8794 (Motor Vehicle User’s Charge, 2000) | Declares the “maintenance and improvement” of national and provincial roads a State policy; indirectly reinforces preservation of existing RROW. | No express reduction clause, but funds tied to original geometric design. |
| Infrastructure Program & Budgeting Laws (Annual GAA & ROW line items) | Appropriate money using the “approved ROW plan” on file with DPWH. | Any material deviation—including width reduction—requires amended ROW plan and corresponding budget realignment. |
| DPWH Uniform Manual on ROW Acquisition (UMROWA) & DPWH Department Order (D.O.) No. 73-2014 | • Standard RROW: 30 m (primary), 20 m (secondary), 15 m (tertiary); may be larger for expressways. • ROW line measured from centerline. |
D.O. 73-2014, sec. 5: width “may be adjusted downward or upward upon technical justification,” subject to (a) Road & Bridge Design Division endorsement, (b) ROW & Legal Service review, (c) Secretary’s approval. Reduction cannot impair safety clear zones. |
| Local Government Code (LGC), secs. 17 & 21 + DPWH-DILG-HUDCC Joint Memo Circular 1-2008 | Barangay & city/municipal roads; minimum widths commonly set by zoning ordinances (10 – 12 m for barangay roads; 15 – 20 m for city roads). | Reduction is done by local ordinance after: public hearing, conformity of affected lot owners, and DPWH technical clearance when the road connects to a higher-class road. |
| Subdivision & Condominium Buyers’ Protective PD 957 & HLURB (now DHSUD) IRR** | Internal roads 8 m (one-way), 10–15 m (collector), 15–20 m (main). | Developers may petition DHSUD for “alteration plan” approval; reduction below minimum widths is not allowed, but re-allocation of shoulders/planting strips sometimes accepted if net carriageway preserved. |
HLURB – Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (now integrated into the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, DHSUD).
3. Constitutional and Expropriation Overlay
Under Art. III, §9 (Constitution) and RA 10752 (Right-of-Way Act, 2016) the State must pay just compensation when it acquires or permanently burdens private land for public use. Reducing an RROW normally does not involve new takings; but if surplus strips are declared permanently unnecessary they revert to the original owners (or their successors) under Art. 637 Civil Code. When that happens the public agency must execute a quitclaim deed and have the portion re-titled.
PART II – PRIVATE EASEMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
4. Civil Code Framework
| Article | Core Rule | Effect on Width |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 649 | Owner of an isolated estate may demand a ROW “sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate.” | Sets initial width criterion. |
| Art. 650 | Servitude shall be established “at the point least prejudicial” to the servient estate and of the width least onerous. | Court or agreement fixes width with that test. |
| Art. 651 | “If the width … becomes inadequate or excessive by reason of any change, it may be increased or reduced.” | Statutory basis for later reduction. |
| Art. 637 | If an easement ceases “because of non-use or other legal ground,” the servient owner may record the reversion. | Applies when reduction equals total extinction on a strip. |
Important points:
- Width is fact-dependent – no statutory centimeters.
- Reduction requires agreement or judicial action; unilateral narrowing by the servient owner constitutes obstruction (actionable under Art. 546 and Art. 429).
- If created by written grant, consult that instrument first; parties may have fixed a minimum or a private procedure for modification.
5. Jurisprudence on Width Reduction
| Case | G.R. No. | Ruling Relevant to Width |
|---|---|---|
| Reyes v. Spouses Valentin | 144507 (17 Jun 2005) | Court may order relocation or resizing of an easement when the original path becomes unduly burdensome. |
| Spouses Abellana v. CA | 128236 (15 May 2002) | Width fixed by trial court at three (3) meters; dominant owner later built wider vehicles – court refused further widening absent proof of necessity. Implicitly allows future narrowing if needs diminish. |
| Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa | 245687 (13 Oct 2021)* | Recognized that once a ROW is granted for agricultural passage, converting the dominant estate to residential use does not automatically increase width. Width may even be narrowed if mechanized farm equipment is no longer used. |
2021 decision noted for its detailed discussion of Art. 651.
PART III – PROCEDURE FOR REDUCING WIDTH
6. Public RROW
Technical Study (road safety audit, traffic projection, cross-section redesign).
Stakeholder Consultation (barangay, utility companies, affected fronting owners).
Agency Approval (DPWH Secretary, or Sanggunian ordinance for local roads).
Registry Update
- Issue a Deed of Release/Abandonment for strips that will revert.
- Annotate on all affected Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs).
Physical Works
- Remove pavement/shoulder or convert to sidewalk, pocket park, etc.
Budget Realignment (if the original expropriation bonds or escrow remain).
7. Private Easement
| Scenario | Practical Steps |
|---|---|
| Parties Agree | Execute a Public Instrument of Partial Extinguishment/Modification of Easement (notarized). Register with the Registry of Deeds to annotate on both TCTs. |
| No Agreement | File a Civil Action under Rule 62 (easements) or an ordinary action for revision of judgment citing Art. 651. Relief sought: (a) declaration that current needs justify narrower width; (b) new metes and bounds; (c) cancellation of excess strip. |
| Voluntary Relocation | If servient owner offers an alternate, narrower path under Art. 650 ¶2, dominant owner’s refusal bars widening and may support reduction. |
8. Compensation & Costs
- Who pays? – The dominant owner (or government agency) must shoulder boundary relocation, masonry work, and land registration fees resulting from the change.
- Valuation – Because the land was already burdened, only incremental damages (e.g., cost of rebuilding a fence set back earlier) are compensable.
- Prescription – Art. 628: 10-year acquisitive prescription can “fix” a de facto width if openly used; therefore, delayed assertion of a reduction right may be barred.
PART IV – PRACTICAL & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
- Urban Design – Cities pursuing “road diet” projects (bike lanes, wider sidewalks) should scrutinize safety standards (AASHTO, DPWH Blue Book) before cutting lane or shoulder widths.
- Disaster Mitigation – The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act encourages maintaining adequate evacuation routes; indiscriminate narrowing of access roads in hazard-prone areas could be struck down as ultra vires.
- Environmental Compliance – Any alteration of a public road still within an EIS-covered project may need an ECC amendment from the DENR-EMB.
- Tax Mapping – LGUs should immediately reflect reverted strips in their tax maps to avoid double assessment.
- Conflict Avoidance – For private easements, engineers’ staking and a Relocation Survey Plan (LMB-approved) reduce later boundary disputes.
CONCLUSION
Reducing the width of a right-of-way in the Philippines is permissible but highly regulated:
- Public roads – handled administratively (DPWH / local sanggunian) with an emphasis on safety, traffic demand, and reversion of unneeded strips.
- Private easements – governed by Arts. 649-651 of the Civil Code, hinging on the present “needs of the dominant estate,” effected either by contract or court decree.
Whether you are a government planner, subdivision developer, or a landowner contesting an over-broad pathway, the touchstone is necessity: once the justification for a certain width evaporates, Philippine law supplies the mechanisms—administrative or judicial—to size the right-of-way down, while balancing public interest and private rights.
This paper relies solely on statutory text, reported Philippine jurisprudence, and officially issued administrative regulations in force as of 1 June 2025.