Short answer. No. The Civil Code specifically bars the easement of aqueduct for private interest from being imposed on buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on orchards or gardens that already exist. If the route would run through your house or an existing garden, the law does not let a neighbor force it there.
What the law says
The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be imposed on buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on orchards or gardens already existing.
Civil Code, Article 644 — Where the Aqueduct Cannot Be Imposed. Read the full provision →
What the article puts off-limits
Article 644 lists specific categories of property that the easement of aqueduct cannot be imposed on: buildings, courtyards, annexes, outhouses, and orchards or gardens already existing. This is not a general balancing test weighing convenience against inconvenience — the article names these categories directly and says the easement cannot be placed on them, full stop, when the aqueduct is for a private interest. The list is exhaustive on its own terms — the article does not add a general "undue hardship" exception beyond the specific categories it names, so a route that avoids those categories is not barred by this article alone.
Why "already existing" is part of the wording
The protection for orchards or gardens applies to ones already existing. That phrase ties the exemption to the state of the property at the relevant time — an orchard or garden that was there before the easement is sought is what the article shields. The article's own text does not extend the same qualifying language to buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses; those categories are simply listed without the "already existing" condition attached to them.
The "private interest" qualifier
Article 644 speaks of the easement of aqueduct for private interest specifically. The rule it states is limited to that category of aqueduct easement. The article does not itself describe how a private-interest aqueduct differs from any other kind, or what happens outside that specific context — it simply fixes the rule for aqueducts sought for a private interest, which is the situation a neighbor seeking to run a water pipe through your land for their own use would fall into.
What the neighbour has to prove even elsewhere on your land
Article 644 removes certain ground from the map; the neighbouring provisions set the price of the ground that is left. Article 642 gives a person who has water he may dispose of the right to make it flow through the intervening estates, but expressly with the obligation to indemnify their owners, and the owners of lower estates onto which the water may filter or descend as well. Article 643 then puts three burdens on the person seeking the easement: to prove he can dispose of the water and that it is sufficient for its intended use, to show the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least onerous to third persons, and to indemnify the owner of the servient estate. So this is never simply a matter of the neighbour choosing a line on a plan — the route must be justified as the least burdensome one, and it is compensable.
What you keep even where the pipe does run
If an aqueduct is lawfully imposed on part of your land, you do not lose that strip. Article 645 provides that the easement does not prevent the owner of the servient estate from closing or fencing it, or from building over the aqueduct, so long as this causes the aqueduct no damage and does not make necessary repairs and cleanings impossible. The limit is functional rather than absolute: you may use and even build over the burdened ground, provided the works do not harm the aqueduct or lock out maintenance.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 644 — Where the Aqueduct Cannot Be Imposed
- Civil Code, Article 642 — The Right to Make Water Flow Through Others' Land
- Civil Code, Article 643 — Conditions for the Easement of Aqueduct
- Civil Code, Article 645 — The Servient Owner May Still Build