Short answer. Yes, they are computed differently. Article 649 of the Civil Code sets indemnity for a permanent passage at the value of the land occupied plus the damage caused, while a right of way limited to cultivation and harvesting without a permanent way is indemnified only by the damage the encumbrance causes.
What the law says
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
Civil Code, Article 649 — The Compulsory Right of Way. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
Civil Code, Article 649 — The Compulsory Right of Way. Read the full provision →
Two different passages, two different indemnity rules
Article 649 does not treat every right of way the same way when it comes to what the servient estate owner is owed. It draws a specific line between a passage used continuously for all the dominant estate's needs and one limited to cultivation and harvesting, and sets a different indemnity formula for each, so the nature of the passage you actually need decides which formula applies to you.
What a permanent passage costs you
For the continuous, permanent kind of passage, Article 649 says the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate. You are paying for two things at once: the value of the strip of land itself, since it is being permanently given over to passage, and separately, whatever damage that arrangement causes the servient estate beyond the land's value alone.
What a harvest-only passage costs you instead
For passage limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance. Because there is no permanent way being carved out of the servient estate, you do not pay for the value of the land itself — only for the damage the temporary encumbrance causes.
Why the distinction tracks how much the servient owner actually loses
The difference reflects what the servient estate owner is actually giving up. A permanent passage occupies land indefinitely, which is why its value is paid on top of damages. A harvest-only passage leaves the servient owner with full use of the land otherwise, so only the actual damage from the periodic passage needs to be compensated, without paying for land the owner never permanently loses use of.
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 →