Short answer. Yes, unless it was dealt with. Article 624 treats an apparent sign of easement maintained by the owner of both estates as a title for the easement to continue once they are separated — unless the deed of conveyance provides otherwise, or the sign is removed before the deed is executed.
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
Civil Code, Article 624 — Apparent Sign Between Two Estates. Read the full provision →
Why there was no easement until the sale
Nobody can hold a servitude over his own land — while one man owned both lots the driveway was simply an arrangement of his property, not a right. What Article 624 does is convert that physical arrangement into a legal one at the moment ownership divides. The visible works stand in for the deed that was never needed: they are considered as a title, and the easement is taken to have been constituted. It continues actively and passively, so whichever lot is sold, the burden and the benefit land where the layout of the ground put them.
The sign has to be apparent
That is the condition the article turns on, and it is about visibility rather than importance. A driveway, a paved path, a gate, a visible pipe or channel, a window — works a buyer inspecting the property would see and understand as serving the neighbouring lot. Something buried, concealed or discernible only from documents is not an apparent sign, and the article does not reach it. The rationale is the buyer's: he is treated as having bought with knowledge of what was in front of him, so the easement is not sprung on him afterwards.
The two ways the seller could have prevented it
Both have to happen before or at the conveyance. The title of conveyance of either estate can provide the contrary — an express stipulation that no easement is intended or that the passage does not survive — or the sign itself can be removed before the deed is executed. Note the timing in each. A stipulation added later does not bind, and demolishing the driveway after the sale destroys an easement that already exists rather than preventing one. The article also applies where property held in common is divided, which is where it most often surprises co-heirs.
Read the deed, then look at the ground as it was
Two questions decide these cases. What did the deed say — so the instrument itself, not a later agreement, is the document to obtain. And what was visibly there on the day it was signed: photographs from that period, the subdivision plan, an appraisal or inspection report, or a site survey showing the works. Aerial and street imagery from around the date of sale is often the cleanest proof that the passage existed and was apparent, and it is easier to retrieve than a witness's memory of a driveway.
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 →