Short answer. Four things: that your land is surrounded by other people's property, that it has no adequate outlet to a public highway, that you will pay the proper indemnity, and that the isolation is not your own doing. Fail any one of them and the demand fails, however inconvenient your present access is.
What the law says
The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
Civil Code, Article 649 — The Compulsory Right of Way. Read the full provision →
Enclosure, and what "adequate" is measured against
The land must be surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway. Both halves are tested. Most demands that fail, fail on the second: there is an outlet, and the owner wants a better one. A steep path, a long detour, a route that floods in the rainy season or is too narrow for a delivery truck may all be genuinely inadequate — but inconvenience by itself is not isolation, and a way that serves the land's actual use, if awkwardly, defeats the claim.
It is bought, not granted
The entitlement arises only after payment of the proper indemnity, and the article fixes two different measures. Where the passage is permanent and continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, the indemnity is the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate — you are effectively paying for the strip. Where the way is limited to what is needed to cultivate the land and gather its crops, without a permanent way, the indemnity is only the damage caused. Deciding which you are asking for changes the price enormously.
Isolation you caused yourself
The closing sentence is the one that ambushes people: this easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. An owner who sold off the frontage and kept the interior, or who built across his own access, cannot then compel a neighbour to solve it. The neighbour has done nothing and is not the source of the problem. This is why the history of how the parcel came to be shaped as it is matters as much as its present shape.
Who may demand, and where the way goes
Note that it is not only the owner — any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable may demand it, so a usufructuary or similar holder qualifies. Location is not the claimant's choice either: Art. 650 puts the way at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and, so far as consistent with that, along the shortest distance to the highway. Bring the title, the approved survey plan, the tax declaration and a plan of the possible routes; the case is usually decided on the survey.
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.
- Naga Centrum, Inc. vs. Spouses Ramon J. Orzales and Nenita F. Orzales, G.R. No. 203576, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Igliceria Vda. De Karaan vs Atty. Salvador Aguinaldo, et al, G.R. No. 182151, September 21, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Crispin Dichoso, Jr., et al. vs. Patrocinio, G.R. No. 180282, April 11, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bicol Agro-Industrial Producers Cooperative, inc. (BAPCI) vs. Edmundo O. Obias, et al, G.R. No. 172077, October 9, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 649 — The Compulsory Right of Way
- Civil Code, Article 650 — Where the Way Must Be Established
- Civil Code, Article 651 — Width of the Way