(Philippine Civil Law perspective)

I. Overview

In the Philippines, it’s very common for neighbors to use another person’s land as a shortcut or access road—sometimes for decades—without any clear written agreement. Eventually, the owner may want to fence or build on that area and “close” the passage, while the neighbor insists that they already have a “right of way.”

Whether the owner can legally close that passage depends on easement law under the Civil Code of the Philippines, plus related doctrines on ownership, abuse of rights, and human relations.

This article walks through everything essential on:

When a landowner may freely close a passage used by neighbors
When neighbors can legally demand a right of way and stop the closure
How easements are created, relocated, and extinguished
Practical and procedural considerations (barangay conciliation, court action, documents, etc.)

This is general information, not a substitute for advice from a Philippine lawyer who has seen your documents and site.

II. Key Legal Concepts

1. Ownership and the Right to Enclose

Under the Civil Code, an owner has the right:

To enjoy and dispose of his property
To exclude others from it
To enclose/fence it

So the default rule:

If you own a piece of land and no valid easement exists over it, you may, in principle, fence it and prevent others from passing.

The main limitation is when there is a legal easement of right of way or other contractual/registered limitation on that right.

2. Easement (Servitude) Basics

An easement (or servitude) is a real right imposed on one property (the servient estate) for the benefit of another (the dominant estate), e.g., a right of way.

Relevant classifications:

By continuity
- Continuous – use is possible without human intervention (e.g., drainage).
- Discontinuous – use needs human act (e.g., right of way, passing over land).
By how they’re acquired
- By title – contract, will, or court judgment
- By law – “legal easements” (like right of way for isolated estates)
- By prescription – only for apparent and continuous easements

A right of way is discontinuous, therefore cannot be acquired by prescription under the Civil Code. Long use alone, without a valid title or legal easement, does not create a permanent right of way.

III. Legal Easement of Right of Way (Enclosed Estates)

The classic situation where neighbors can resist closure is when they are entitled to a legal easement of right of way because their property is enclosed.

1. When Neighbors Can Demand a Right of Way

Under the Civil Code, an owner of an enclosed estate (no adequate access to a public road) may demand a right of way across neighboring land if:

The estate is truly enclosed
- No adequate outlet to a public highway
- “Adequate” means reasonably sufficient for the normal and intended use of the property (residential, agricultural, commercial), not just barely passable.
The right of way is:
- Located at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and
- Usually along the shortest route to the public road, so far as compatible with least prejudice.
Indemnity is paid
- The dominant estate owner must pay proper indemnity/compensation to the servient estate owner before the easement is constituted.
The isolation is not due to the fault of the dominant owner without reserving access (exceptions and nuances apply).

If these requirements are not met, neighbors cannot demand a legal right of way and generally cannot prevent closure.

2. How the Easement is Created

A legal right of way is not automatically created just because the neighbor is enclosed. It must be:

Constituted by agreement (e.g., written contract) or
Granted by court in an easement/right-of-way case

Until then, the passage is not yet a legal easement in the strict sense—though courts can consider long-standing arrangements in equity and in applying rules on human relations.

3. Indemnity / Compensation

The neighbor who needs the right of way must pay the owner:

The value of the area occupied by the easement (either as full value or as an easement valuation, depending on circumstances)
Plus possible damages (for improvements, loss, etc.)

This compensation is a condition for the easement; without it, the owner is not required to permanently provide passage.

IV. Tolerance vs. Easement vs. Contractual Right

This is often where actual disputes arise.

1. Mere Tolerance

If the owner simply allows neighbors to pass out of kindness or convenience, without any written agreement or clear intention to create a permanent right, then:

This is tolerance
The neighbor’s use is by permission, not by right
The owner can usually withdraw that permission and close the passage

Important points:

Even long use (10, 20, 30+ years) does not transform tolerance into a legal right of way because right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription.
Courts, however, may consider sudden, harsh withdrawal of long-tolerated access under the rules on abuse of rights and human relations, especially if it causes disproportionate harm and there is no genuine need or benefit to the owner.

2. Contractual Easement or Agreement

If there is a written contract, “right-of-way agreement,” annotation on title, or subdivision document describing a road lot or access:

The neighbor may have a contractual easement
The owner typically cannot unilaterally close the passage
Any modification/relocation/termination must comply with the contract and, if registered, with property registration rules

Even if not annotated, a clear written contract can be enforced between the parties.

3. Subdivision Plans, Road Lots, and Donations to LGU

Check if the supposed “passage”:

Appears on a subdivision plan as a road lot, or
Has been donated to the municipality/barangay as a road

If so, it may no longer be purely private property, or at least the owner may be bound by:

The subdivision approval conditions
LGU acceptance of road lots
Representations made to buyers who relied on those roads

In those situations, unilateral closure is usually not allowed and can lead to administrative or civil liability.

V. When Can the Landowner Close the Passage?

Let’s break down the main scenarios.

Scenario A: No Easement, No Agreement, Estate Not Enclosed

Facts (typical):

Neighbors use your lot as a shortcut
Their property has another, although longer or less convenient, route to a public road
No written contract, no title annotation, no court order
You simply allowed it out of neighborliness

In this case, you generally may close the passage, because:

There is no legal easement (their estate is not enclosed)
There is no contractual easement
Long use does not create a right of way by prescription

However, you should still:

Avoid doing it in a way that is malicious or purely vindictive
Give reasonable notice to avoid sudden disruption (not a strict legal requirement, but useful to show good faith)
Be mindful that neighbors might still sue, claiming an enclosed estate or alleging abuse of rights; your good-faith efforts (notice, dialogue) will matter in court.

Scenario B: Estate is Truly Enclosed, but No Formal Easement Yet

Facts:

Neighbor’s land is landlocked (no adequate access to public road)
They have always passed over your lot as the only practical access
No written agreement, no court order yet

Legally:

They have a right to demand a legal easement of right of way from one of the neighboring estates (not necessarily yours; but typically the one with shortest, least prejudicial route).
They must pay indemnity.
Until an agreement or court order is in place, the situation is unsettled.

Can you close?

Technically, until the easement is constituted, your full right to exclude remains.
But a sudden closure in such a scenario may be viewed by a court as contrary to good faith or abusive, especially if it completely traps the neighbor within their property.
Practically, courts tend to protect access, and you might end up:
- Being ordered to reopen or provide an easement, and
- Facing possible damages if the closure was particularly harsh.

Best practice in such a scenario:

Engage in negotiation, propose a formal easement with compensation, or
File an appropriate court action to define rights rather than simply blocking the only access.

Scenario C: There Is a Recognized Easement (By Contract, Judgment, or Subdivision Plan)

If an easement of right of way already exists by title or court judgment, or clearly by subdivision documents, then:

You generally cannot unilaterally close the passage.
To change or extinguish it, you need:
- Consent of the dominant estate (neighbor), or
- Grounds under the Civil Code for extinguishment (see below) and usually court intervention.

VI. Relocation, Modification, and Extinguishment of Easements

Even if an easement exists, the servient owner is not forever stuck with the exact original path.

1. Relocation of Easement

The Civil Code allows the servient estate owner (you) to change the location of the right of way if:

The new location is equally convenient for the neighbor, and
The change does not prejudice them.

Key points:

Often, the servient owner shoulders the cost of relocation if they are the one asking for it.
Relocation is commonly sought when:
- The existing path cuts through an area needed for building or improving the property
- The owner wants the easement along the edge/boundary instead of the middle of the lot

You cannot simply block the old path without providing an equivalent alternative if the easement is already legally constituted.

2. Extinguishment of Easement

An easement may be extinguished by, among others:

Merger of the dominant and servient estates in one person
Expiration of the term or fulfillment of condition in the title
Renunciation by the dominant estate owner
Non-use for ten (10) years
Permanent change in the condition of the estate that makes the easement useless

For right of way:

As a discontinuous easement, the 10-year period of non-use generally runs from the last use of the easement.
Once extinguished, the servient owner can lawfully close the passage.

VII. Abuse of Rights and Human Relations

Even when the law appears to be on the owner’s side, the Civil Code imposes standards of good faith and fair dealing:

Article 19 – Everyone must, in the exercise of rights and performance of duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Article 20 – A person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter.
Article 21 – A person who willfully acts in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy and causes damage is liable.

Application to closing a passage:

A closure purely to harass or spite a neighbor (e.g., done at night, blocking someone’s only exit without warning, when you have no need for that area) may expose you to:
- Claims for damages
- Court orders to temporarily restore passage (as an equitable measure)
Conversely, if you:
- Give reasonable prior notice,
- Offer alternative access or a reasonable relocation if feasible,
- Try conciliation at the barangay,
- And genuinely need to use or secure your land,
…you’re more likely to be seen as acting within your rights and in good faith.

VIII. Procedural and Practical Considerations

1. Barangay Conciliation

For disputes between neighbors in the same city/municipality (and especially same barangay):

The Lupong Tagapamayapa must usually first hear the dispute before any court case, under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
If you plan to close or if they plan to demand a right of way, expect that:
- One side may file a complaint at the barangay
- You’ll be invited to mediation and conciliation

Failure to attend or participate in good faith can weaken your position later in court.

2. Possible Court Actions

Depending on who acts first and what is at issue:

By the neighbor (dominant estate claimant):
- Action to compel the grant of a right of way
- Application for injunction to prevent closure or to reopen access
- Claim for damages for wrongful closure
By the owner (servient estate):
- Action for quieting of title to declare that no easement exists
- Ejectment (unlawful detainer/intrusion) if neighbors forcibly maintain structures or obstructions
- Judicial confirmation that a tolerated use has no legal right attached

Expect courts to examine:

Actual access conditions on the ground
Titles, tax declarations, subdivision plans
Length and character of use (tolerance vs. claim of right)
Conduct of each party (good faith vs harassment/abuse)

IX. Documentation: What You Should Check Before Closing

If you are the owner thinking of closing a passage, or the neighbor relying on it, review:

Title (TCT/OCT) of the property
- Any annotations about right of way, road lots, or donations
Subdivision plans / surveys / technical descriptions
- Is the path marked as a road lot or access?
Deeds and contracts
- Deeds of sale, donation, right-of-way agreements
LGU records / barangay resolutions
- Any indication that the path was accepted as a public road?
Actual condition of neighboring lots
- Is the neighbor truly enclosed?
- Are there other alternative paths, even if less convenient?

X. Practical Guidelines for Owners

If you’re considering closing a passage used by neighbors:

Verify your documents
- Make sure there is no existing easement or road lot.
Assess whether neighbors are truly landlocked
- If they are, strongly consider negotiating a paid easement instead of outright closure.
Communicate and give notice
- Inform neighbors of your intention to fence or build
- Provide reasonable time for them to adjust or to propose a formal agreement
Offer alternatives when feasible
- Propose relocating the passage to a less intrusive strip of your land
- Negotiate compensation and conditions
Use the barangay conciliation process
- It’s cheaper and faster than court
- Document your good faith (minutes, agreements)
Consider security and liability
- Allowing an open passage might expose you to risks (trespassers, crime, accidents)
- Fencing and clearly marking boundaries can help avoid future disputes

XI. Practical Guidelines for Neighbors Using the Passage

If you rely on a passage over someone else’s lot:

Check if your property is really enclosed
- If there is another route, even if less convenient, your claim to a legal easement is weaker.
Gather your documents
- Title, tax declarations, subdivision plans, old deeds
- Any written or even informal agreements
Talk to the owner early
- Don’t wait until construction or fencing is underway
- Propose a formal easement with compensation
Use barangay conciliation
- File a complaint for right of way if negotiations fail
- Aim for a written compromise agreement that can be enforced
Be realistic about compensation
- The law expects the dominant estate to pay for the easement
- Goodwill and fair compensation go a long way
Prepare for possible court action
- Especially if closure would leave you without any adequate access

XII. Summary

A landowner in the Philippines generally has the right to fence and close their property, including portions long used as a passage, unless:
- A legal easement of right of way exists (by law and court or agreement), or
- There is a contractual or registered easement, or
- Subdivision/LGU documents effectively dedicate the area as a road.
Neighbors may demand a legal right of way only if their estate is enclosed and other Civil Code requirements (least prejudice, shortest route, payment of indemnity) are satisfied.
Long, tolerated use of a path does not by itself create a permanent right of way, because rights of way are discontinuous and do not arise by prescription; but abuse of rights and human relations doctrines can still restrain harsh, bad-faith closures.
Even where an easement exists, the servient owner may seek relocation (under conditions) and easements can be extinguished in specific cases (non-use, merger, etc.).
In practice, disputes involve:
- Careful document and site review
- Barangay conciliation
- Sometimes court actions to define or enforce rights

If you’d like, you can describe your specific situation (who owns what, what the titles say, and how the properties are laid out), and I can help map these general rules to your scenario in more concrete terms.