Short answer. Yes. Article 638 subjects the banks of rivers and streams, even where privately owned, to an easement of public use within a zone of three metres along their margins, throughout their entire length. The purposes are navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage. Your title carries the land subject to that burden.
What the law says
The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private ownership, are subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their margins, to the easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.
Civil Code, Article 638 — The Three-Metre Bank Zone. Read the full provision →
You own the strip; you do not have it to yourself
The article is explicit that the land may be private — even in case they are of private ownership — and burdens it anyway. So this is not a question of whether the state has taken three metres from you. You keep the ownership, the area, and it remains part of your titled lot. What you cannot do is use it in a way that defeats the public purposes named. Fencing the strip off, building on it, or blocking access along the bank is the ordinary way owners run into this, usually without ever having read the provision.
The zone is measured along the margin, and it applies everywhere
Two phrases fix the extent. Throughout their entire length — there is no stretch of bank that is exempt because it is remote, fenced, or has always been treated as private. And within a zone of three meters along their margins, so it is measured from the bank rather than from your boundary or from the water at any particular moment. Where the channel has shifted over the years, the strip shifts with it, which means the encumbered part of your lot is not necessarily where it was when the title was issued.
The towpath is a separate and heavier burden
The article adds a second easement for estates adjoining navigable or floatable rivers: a towpath for the exclusive service of river navigation and floatage. This one is not merely a restriction on use — it contemplates occupation of the land. That is why the article ends by requiring that where private land must be occupied for the purpose, the proper indemnity shall first be paid. Note the word first. Compensation attaches to the towpath, not to the three-metre zone of public use, which is borne without payment.
Establish where the bank is before you build
Anything you put near the water is at risk of standing in the zone, and structures do not become lawful by being tolerated for years. Have the boundary and the current bank line located by a licensed surveyor, and compare the result against the technical description in your title and the approved plan. Other regulations apply to land along waterways and to work near them, and those are worth checking with the local authority before construction rather than after — a completed structure in the zone is a much harder problem than a redrawn plan.
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.
- Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (Mmda) vs. Diamond Motor Corporation, G.R. No. 203386, October 11, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Corazon S. Cruz under the name and style, Villa Corazon Condo Dormitory vs. Manila International Airport Authority, G.R. No. 184732, September 9, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →