This case clarifies that simply using a road on someone else’s property for an extended period does not automatically grant you a legal right to continue using it. A formal agreement or title is required to establish a legal easement of right of way. Without such documentation, the property owner can block access. This ruling protects landowners from losing rights due to mere tolerance of others’ use of their property.

Road Access Rights: Can Two Decades of Use Create a Permanent Right of Way?

This case revolves around the Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. (BAPCI), which sought to secure a right of way over a road it had been using for years. BAPCI acquired assets from Bicol Sugar Development Corporation (BISUDECO), which in 1972 constructed a road across private lands to haul sugarcane. Landowners allowed BISUDECO’s use for about two decades. However, a dispute arose when the landowners barricaded the road, asserting their property rights. BAPCI filed a complaint, claiming it had acquired a right of way either through an agreement between BISUDECO and the landowners or through prolonged use (prescription). The central legal question is whether continuous use of a road on private land, without a formal agreement, can establish a legal easement of right of way.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of BAPCI, granting a permanent injunction against the landowners from blocking the road. The RTC also ordered BAPCI to pay the landowners for the use of their land. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, modified the RTC’s decision. The CA affirmed that BAPCI was entitled to a compulsory easement but clarified that the landowners retained ownership of the land. Importantly, the CA deleted awards to certain landowners who were not parties to the case or did not claim ownership of the affected land.

The Supreme Court (SC) denied BAPCI’s petition, underscoring that an **easement of right of way** is discontinuous, meaning it is used at intervals and depends on human acts. Such easements can only be acquired through **title**, which refers to a legal document or agreement demonstrating the right to use the land. The Court cited Article 622 of the New Civil Code, stating that “Continuous non-apparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title.” This legal framework prevents the imposition of a burden on property based solely on tolerance or neighborliness. The law requires a clear, documented agreement for the use of land to qualify as a legal right of way.

Art. 622. Continuous non-apparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title

The Supreme Court rejected BAPCI’s argument that circumstantial evidence could prove an agreement existed. Although the road had been used for nearly two decades without complaint, this did not equate to a legally binding agreement. Citing its previous ruling in Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that easements are classified as continuous or discontinuous based on the manner they are exercised, not on the presence of apparent signs like permanent roads. Since the right to pass over the road depended on BAPCI’s actions, it was a discontinuous easement, which, by law, requires a title.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicability of **laches** and **estoppel**, equitable principles that could prevent landowners from asserting their rights. Laches applies when there is unreasonable delay in asserting a right, and estoppel occurs when someone’s actions or statements cause another to believe a particular fact and act accordingly. Here, the Court found that Article 622 of the Civil Code mandates a title for discontinuous easements, precluding the application of these equitable principles. No evidence demonstrated that the landowners had made representations leading BAPCI to believe it had a permanent right of way.

The court further stated:

To our mind, settled jurisprudence on the application of the principle of estoppel by laches militates against the acquisition of an easement of right of way by laches.Laches is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and not courts of equity; equity, which has been aptly described as “justice outside legality,” should be applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law; Aeguetas nunguam contravenit legis. Based on this principle, we find that the positive mandate of Article 622 of the Civil Code – the statutory provision requiring title as basis for the acquisition of an easement of a right of way – precludes the application of the equitable principle of laches.

Finally, BAPCI contended that the road had become a barangay road, which would imply public ownership and access. However, the Court found this argument unsupported. Evidence presented by BAPCI was insufficient to prove expropriation by the local government. Tax declarations suggested the land remained under private ownership. The Supreme Court affirmed that while some portions of the property owned by one respondent were barangay roads, these were distinct from the road in dispute. The SC held that to establish the road as public, documentation from expropriation proceedings would be necessary, and its absence damaged BAPCI’s cause. This legal analysis underscores the necessity of formal documentation to create and enforce rights of way.

FAQs

What is a right of way easement?	A right of way easement grants permission to cross or use someone else’s land for a specified purpose. It can be permanent or temporary, and must be clearly defined.
Can you acquire a right of way through long-term usage?	No, long-term usage alone isn’t sufficient to acquire a legal right of way in the Philippines. A formal agreement or title is required, according to this case.
What is the difference between continuous and discontinuous easements?	Continuous easements are used without human intervention (like drainage), while discontinuous easements require human action (like a road). Only the first type may be acquired through continuous usage, but NOT an easement of right of way.
What is a title in the context of easement law?	In easement law, a title refers to the legal basis establishing the right of way, like a deed of sale, donation, inheritance or a formal contract agreeing to use of land as an easement.
Can tolerance of the land owner be used as a basis for prescription to acquire a right of way?	No, an act of tolerance cannot be used as a bases to establish prescription to be granted right of way since prescription requires an adverse claim, not a permissive right.
What is acquisitive prescription?	It is acquiring ownership (or rights) of something, in this case right of way by possessing it for a certain period of time. A discontinuous easement can never be acquired by prescription
If there’s no written agreement, is there any way to obtain a right of way?	If there’s no formal agreement, Article 649 of the New Civil Code allows a party to apply with the courts for a compulsory easement of right of way to seek for an outlet going to the highway, but an easement must first be declared and proper remuneration to land owner be first offered.
What should landowners do to protect their property rights?	Landowners should prevent unauthorized use of their property and execute a written agreement to show consent. Clearly document any agreed-upon usage to safeguard the owner’s rights to land ownership.

The BAPCI case serves as a critical reminder that usage, no matter how long or consistent, does not replace the necessity of documented agreements to establish legal rights over property. For individuals or entities needing access across private land, securing a written agreement protects their right of way. For landowners, the ruling reinforces the importance of managing property access and recording legal agreements with another.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, Inc. (BAPCI) v. Edmundo O. Obias, G.R. No. 172077, October 9, 2009