Text of the provision
Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity. 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. 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. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts.
(564a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
The owner (or one who by real right may cultivate or use) of an immovable surrounded by others without adequate outlet to a public highway is entitled to demand a right of way through neighbouring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity. The easement is not compulsory if the isolation is due to the proprietor's own acts.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 648 — Special Laws Govern Water Servitudes.
- Article 650 — Where the Way Must Be Established.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- St. Michael School of Cavite, Inc., et al. vs. Masaito Development Corp., et al, G.R. No. 166301, February 29, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.