Short answer. A positive easement obliges the owner of the burdened land to allow something to be done on it, or to do it himself. A negative easement obliges him not to do something he could otherwise lawfully do on his own land. One compels tolerance or action; the other compels abstention.
What the law says
A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself, and a negative easement, that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
Civil Code, Article 616 — Positive and Negative Easements. Read the full provision →
The vocabulary first
An easement is a burden on one piece of land for the benefit of another. The burdened land is the servient estate; the land that benefits is the dominant estate. The classification here looks only at what the servient owner has to do. A positive easement imposes on him the obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself — he must tolerate a neighbour crossing, or must actually perform something. A negative easement instead prohibits him from doing something which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. The reference point is telling: the act forbidden is one that would otherwise be perfectly legal for an owner on his own property.
What each looks like on the ground
A right of passage across a neighbouring lot is positive: the servient owner must permit the crossing and cannot fence it off. So is an easement that allows a pipe or a drain to run through the land, or one that requires the servient owner to perform maintenance himself. A restriction against building above a certain height, or against blocking a window's access to light and view, is negative: the owner is not asked to do anything, only to refrain from an act of ownership he would otherwise be free to perform. Notice that the burden of a negative easement is invisible on inspection — nothing is being done on the land.
Why the label has practical consequences
The distinction is not academic. Because a positive easement shows itself in acts on the servient land, its existence and its beginning are usually easy to trace. A negative easement leaves no physical trace, which affects how such an easement is established, how its commencement is reckoned, and how a buyer of the land can be expected to know of it. That difference feeds directly into whether an easement can be acquired by long use at all and from when that use is counted. The safe practical rule for a purchaser is that easements are not always visible on the ground, so the title and its annotations must be read, not just the lot.
The limits of the classification
This article classifies easements; it does not create them. Whether an easement exists at all comes from another source — the law itself, a contract, a title annotation, or long continuous use where that is permitted — and this provision assumes that question is already answered. It also does not settle the scope of the burden. An easement is limited to its purpose, and the dominant owner cannot enlarge it or make it more onerous, while the servient owner retains ownership and every use not inconsistent with the easement. Where an easement is being asserted against your property, or yours is being obstructed, get the certificate of title and any annotations examined before confronting a neighbour, and book a consultation if the dispute is escalating.
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 →