Short answer. An easement is a burden imposed on one property for the benefit of another belonging to a different owner. The property that benefits is the dominant estate; the one that carries the burden is the servient estate. It binds the land itself, not merely the neighbours who agreed to it.
What the law says
An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate.
Civil Code, Article 613 — Easement Defined. Read the full provision →
A relationship between lands, not between people
The definition fixes the burden on an immovable and the benefit on another immovable. That is the feature everything else follows from. Because the easement attaches to the land, it does not end when either neighbour sells or dies; the buyer of the servient estate takes it burdened, and the buyer of the dominant estate takes the benefit with it. A person who bought a lot believing that a right of passage across it was a private accommodation between the previous owners has usually misread what he acquired.
The two estates, and why the labels matter
The Code names the parties by their land. The dominant estate is the one in favor of which the easement is established; the servient estate is the one subject thereto. Getting the labels right at the outset settles most arguments about who may do what. The dominant owner may use the easement for its purpose and, within limits, do what is necessary to keep it usable. The servient owner keeps ownership and every use of his land that does not impair the easement — he has not given the strip away, only accepted that it carries a burden.
The requirement of different owners
The definition requires that the benefited immovable belong to a different owner, and the requirement is not a formality. A person cannot hold an easement over his own land, because the burden and the benefit would sit in the same hands and there would be nothing to enforce against anybody. The practical consequence appears when the two lots later come to be owned by one person: the arrangement ceases to be an easement and becomes, at most, a manner in which an owner chooses to use his own property — and it does not automatically revive if the lots are separated again.
How to find out whether one exists
Start with the certificates of title for both lots, since an easement is frequently annotated on them, and read the annotations rather than only the front page. Then compare the title with the ground: an approved subdivision plan and a relocation survey will show whether the passage, drain or line people actually use corresponds to anything of record. Where an easement is being created now, put it in writing with the affected area described by the survey, and have it annotated — an unannotated arrangement is a difficult thing to assert against a later purchaser.
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.
- Privatization Management Office vs. Legaspi Towers 300, Inc, G.R. No. 147957, July 22, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Rosemary D. Gabatan and Alexander N. Gabatan vs. Dominga B. Ahlgren, G.R. No. 248685, July 7,2025 — 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 →
- 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 →