Short answer. In the cases the law itself provides for, yes. Article 634 of the Civil Code says easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the interest of private persons — so they come from the statute rather than from your agreement, and can be demanded over your objection.
What the law says
Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the interest of private persons.
Civil Code, Article 634 — The Object of Legal Easements. Read the full provision →
Two sources of a burden on land
An easement is a burden placed on one property for the benefit of another property or of the community — a right of way across your lot, a duty to receive water that naturally flows down from higher ground, a limit on how close a window may be built. Such a burden can arise in only two ways: because the owners created it, or because the law imposes it. Article 634 deals with the second kind and classifies it by purpose: Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the interest of private persons. That single sentence is why a neighbour can sometimes insist on something you never agreed to.
Public use and private interest are not the same thing
Easements for public use are burdens the community carries for everyone — along riverbanks and public waters, for public roads, for safety and clearance zones — and they are shaped largely by special laws and regulations rather than by negotiation between neighbours. Easements in the interest of private persons are the everyday ones: a right of way for an estate with no adequate outlet to a public road, the natural drainage of waters, easements of light and view, the distances required for buildings, trees and certain works, party walls, and the right to lead water across an intervening lot. These are enforced by one landowner against another.
"Without consent" does not mean without conditions
A neighbour cannot simply help himself because the law recognises a category. He must show that the requisites of the particular easement are met — for a right of way, for instance, that the estate really is enclosed, that the isolation was not caused by his own act, and that the passage is claimed at the point least prejudicial to you and, so far as consistent with that, the shortest. Most legal easements in the interest of private persons also require proper indemnity to the owner who is burdened. If you refuse, the remedy is to sue for the easement, not to open a gate.
What an easement leaves you, and what to do about it
You remain the owner. The land is not transferred, and you may continue to use it in any way that does not defeat the burden. The person who benefits generally bears the cost of the works and their upkeep, must use the easement in the least burdensome manner, and cannot quietly widen it later into something bigger than what was granted. Some legal easements also cease when the need that justified them disappears. In practice, ask the neighbour to identify the exact provision he relies on, get a relocation survey before agreeing to any alignment, settle indemnity in writing, and have the arrangement annotated on the title — an unrecorded understanding between neighbours tends to become a dispute between their children.
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.
- National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, namely: Cebu, Batowa-an, et al., all surnamed Macabangkit, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →