Short answer. Yes, but only if you act before or at the time of the sale. Once the two lots are divided between different owners, an apparent easement established by the common owner continues automatically unless the sale deed expressly provides otherwise or the visible sign of the easement is removed before the deed is signed.
What the law says
The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed.
Civil Code, Article 624 — Apparent Sign Between Two Estates. Read the full provision →
What an apparent easement is and how it arises between two lots
An apparent easement is one that is visible through a permanent sign — a drain running between properties, a path worn through consistent use, a window or opening in a shared wall, a canal or aqueduct. When a single owner holds two adjacent lots and establishes or maintains such a visible arrangement between them, there is technically no easement because one person cannot hold a servitude over their own property. But the moment one of those lots is sold to someone else, Article 624 converts that visible arrangement into a genuine easement binding on both estates.
The two ways to prevent the easement from arising
Article 624 provides exactly two escape routes. First, the deed of sale — whether the deed for the lot being sold or the deed for the lot being retained — can expressly state that the apparent sign shall not constitute an easement. The contrary provision must appear in the title of conveyance; a verbal agreement or a separate informal document will not do. Second, the physical sign of the easement can be removed or destroyed before the deed is executed. After the deed is signed, neither of these remedies is available — the easement has already been created by operation of law.
What happens if you do nothing
If you sell one lot without addressing the apparent easement in the deed and without removing the visible sign beforehand, the easement comes into existence automatically. The buyer of the sold lot acquires the benefit of the easement (or the burden, depending on the direction), and neither party can unilaterally undo it. The statute is clear that the visible sign acts as the title establishing the easement — no further documentation or registration is needed for it to bind both estates and their subsequent owners.
The same rule applies to co-owned property being divided
Article 624 expressly extends to partition — when two or more co-owners divide property they held in common and each receives a separate lot. If there was an apparent sign of easement across the originally co-owned land, the same rules apply: it becomes an easement between the newly separate estates unless the deed of partition provides otherwise or the sign is removed before the partition deed is executed. If you are in the middle of a partition and there are visible drains, openings, or paths between the portions being allocated, those should be addressed explicitly in the partition agreement.
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.
- Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia vs. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita, G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- 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 →
- Heirs of the late Joaquin Limense vs. Rita vda. De Ramos, et al, G.R. No. 152319, October 28, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Privatization Management Office vs. Legaspi Towers 300, Inc, G.R. No. 147957, July 22, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →