Short answer. Yes, but with an important offset. Under Article 655 of the Civil Code, the owner of the servient estate must return the indemnity — but the interest earned on that indemnity is treated as payment for the use of the easement during the period it existed. The principal is returned; the interest is retained as rent.
What the law says
the owner of the servient estate may demand that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have received by way of indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement.
Civil Code, Article 655 — Extinguishment When No Longer Necessary. Read the full provision →
When the right of way can be extinguished
A compulsory right of way exists because an estate is landlocked — isolated from a public road — and its owner has no other access. Article 655 addresses what happens when that isolation ends. Two situations can make the easement no longer necessary: first, the owner of the dominant estate acquires another piece of land that connects to a public road; second, a new public road is opened that gives adequate access to the isolated estate. In either case, the owner of the servient estate (the one burdened by the easement) may demand that it be extinguished.
The indemnity is returned — but interest is kept
When the easement is extinguished under Article 655, the servient owner must return the indemnity they originally received. This makes sense: the indemnity was paid for the right to use the path, and if that right ends, the unused portion of the payment should go back. However, the interest that accrued on the indemnity is not returned. The Civil Code treats that interest as rent — payment for the actual use the dominant owner made of the passage during the years the easement was in force. The principal goes back; the income it generated stays.
The new access must substantially meet the estate's needs
Article 655 includes a condition that is easy to overlook: the new public road or the connection to a public road through the newly acquired land must substantially meet the needs of the dominant estate. A narrow footpath or a seasonal road that is impassable in the rainy season may not be adequate. If the new access does not genuinely serve the estate's needs, the easement cannot be extinguished on that basis. What counts as "substantial" depends on the actual use of the property, so this is a factual question that may require a closer look at the specific situation.
Who initiates the extinguishment
It is the servient estate owner — the one whose land the path crosses — who has the right to demand extinguishment under Article 655. The dominant owner is not obligated to give up the easement merely because new access appears. If the servient owner wants to close the path, they need to show that the conditions in Article 655 are met and then formally demand the extinguishment and return the indemnity. If there is a dispute about whether the conditions are met, that may need to be resolved through proper proceedings.