Short answer. Yes, under conditions. The Civil Code lets a servient owner relocate an easement that has become very inconvenient, or that blocks important works or improvements, but only at his own expense and only by offering another spot that is equally convenient and causes no injury to whoever holds the easement.
What the law says
The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.
Civil Code, Article 629 — The Servient Owner May Not Impair the Easement. Read the full provision →
What the law says
if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the manner established for the use of the easement, the same should become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or should prevent him from making any important works, repairs or improvements thereon, it may be changed at his expense, provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate
Civil Code, Article 629 — The Servient Owner May Not Impair the Easement. Read the full provision →
The starting rule is that the burden cannot be interfered with
Article 629 opens with a firm statement: the servient owner cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. That is the default, and it is deliberately absolute in its wording — an easement is a right the dominant estate holds, and the servient owner does not get to make it harder to exercise simply because it is inconvenient to have on the property. Relocation is the exception the article carves into that default, not a general license to interfere.
What has to be true before relocation is allowed
The exception applies where the easement, because of where it was originally placed or how it was set up to be used, has become very inconvenient to the servient owner, or where it prevents him from making any important works, repairs or improvements on the property. Both grounds require more than mild annoyance — the wording points to a genuine obstacle to the servient owner's use of his own land, not simply a preference for a tidier layout.
Three conditions attach to any relocation
Even where relocation is justified, the article does not let the servient owner move the easement however he likes. The change must be made at his expense — the dominant estate does not pay for a move it did not ask for. The servient owner must offer another place or manner equally convenient, meaning the substitute cannot leave the dominant estate worse off in how the easement functions. And the change must cause no injury to the dominant owner or to anyone else entitled to use the easement — a technically "equal" alternative that still disrupts existing use does not satisfy the article.
What this means if you are on either side
If you own the servient estate and want to relocate an easement, be ready to show both why the current location is genuinely very inconvenient or blocks an important improvement, and that your proposed alternative is truly equal in convenience and causes the dominant estate no injury — the burden of establishing both sits with you. If you hold the easement and are being asked to accept a relocation, look closely at whether the new arrangement actually preserves what you had, since equal on paper is not the same as equal in practice.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Spouses Rudy Fernandez and Cristeta Aquino vs. Spouses Merardo Delfin and Angelita Delfin, G.R. No. 227917, March 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124699, July 31, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →