Short answer. No, with one exception. Article 629 of the Civil Code forbids the servient owner from impairing the easement's use in any manner whatsoever. The sole exception is relocation: if the original location becomes very inconvenient, the owner may move it at their own expense to an equally convenient spot — never simply block or obstruct it.
What the law says
The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. Nevertheless, 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 or to those who may have a right to the use of the easement.
Civil Code, Article 629 — The Servient Owner May Not Impair the Easement. Read the full provision →
The absolute prohibition on impairment
Article 629 opens with a rule that admits no middle ground: the owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. This covers everything — closing gates, building obstructions, planting along the path, narrowing the passage, restricting access hours, posting warnings intended to discourage use. The phrase in any manner whatsoever is deliberate: there is no technical workaround that leaves the easement nominally intact while making it practically useless. The right to use the easement must be exercised as it was established.
The one permitted change: relocation
Article 629 carves out a single exception. If the location or the manner of use of the easement has become very inconvenient to the servient owner — or if it prevents them from making important works, repairs, or improvements — the location or manner can be changed. But the exception is tightly controlled: the change must be at the servient owner's expense, they must offer another location or manner that is equally convenient, and the change must cause no injury to the dominant owner or anyone else with the right to use the easement. All three conditions must be met before the relocation can happen.
What equally convenient means
The test of equal convenience is not just that the new location is theoretically usable — it must work as well in practice as the original for the purposes the easement serves. If your easement gives you access to a road, the alternative location must also give you access to that road, with comparable distance, width, and surface. If the easement was used for water flow, the alternative must carry the same volume with the same reliability. A substitute that is technically possible but practically inferior does not satisfy Article 629.
What to do if your easement is being obstructed
If the servient owner is blocking, narrowing, or otherwise interfering with your easement — and has not gone through the relocation process — they are violating Article 629. Document the obstruction with photographs, note the dates and the nature of what was done, and keep a record of how your use has been affected. You may seek a court order requiring the obstruction to be removed. If the servient owner claims they are exercising the relocation exception, examine carefully whether their proposed alternative is truly equally convenient and whether they offered it before, not after, creating the obstruction.
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 →