Short answer. Yes. Continuous but nonapparent easements, and discontinuous easements of any kind, whether apparent or not, can only come from a title — an agreement, deed, will, or similar document — never from years of use alone. No length of use by itself turns them into a legal right.
What the law says
Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
Civil Code, Article 622 — Easements Acquirable Only by Title. Read the full provision →
Two categories that require a title
Article 622 singles out two kinds of easements that can never be acquired by mere use, however long it continues. The first is a continuous but nonapparent easement — one that operates without needing a person to act each time, but that leaves no visible sign on the land. The second is any discontinuous easement, whether or not it happens to be visible. Both require a title before they exist as a legal right.
What 'title' means here
A title, in this sense, is not a land title in the registry sense — it means some act or instrument that actually creates the easement: a contract between the landowners, a provision in a will, a court judgment, or a similar juridical act. Without one of these, the easement simply does not exist as a matter of law, no matter how consistently a neighbor has used the land.
Why years of use do not create the right
The reason the law draws this line is that a nonapparent or discontinuous easement gives the servient owner little practical chance to notice, object to, or resist the use while it is happening. A path used only occasionally, or a benefit that leaves no outward trace, does not put the landowner on the kind of continuous notice that would justify treating long use as consent. So the law requires an actual title instead of inferring one from behavior.
The practical takeaway for a neighbor dispute
If what is being claimed is this kind of easement — nonapparent, or discontinuous even if visible — years of using the land, by itself, will not be enough to establish it. What matters is whether there is a document or act that created the right in the first place. Without that, the claim does not stand on use alone, regardless of how long it has gone on.
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.
- 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 →
- Sps. Bernabe Mercade, Jr., et al. vs. Sps. Jesus Bardillas and Letecia Gabuya Bardillas, G.R. No. 163157, June 27, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Camarines Sur Teachers and Employees Association, Inc., represented by its President, Dr. Antonio A, G.R. No. 199666, October 7, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124699, July 31, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →