Dear Attorney,

I am writing to seek legal advice regarding a problem we are facing about a Road Right of Way (RROW) granted in favor of our neighbor. Initially, we provided a 2-meter-wide RROW as required and agreed upon. However, the neighboring party is now demanding an increase to 3 meters, which would require demolishing part of an existing building on our property.

Given that we have already made significant investments in our structure, I would like to understand the legal remedies or courses of action available to us. Are we legally obligated to accommodate their request even if it means compromising our building? What protections do we have under the law as the property owner? Could you kindly advise on how to proceed and protect our rights?

Respectfully,
A Concerned Property Owner

Legal Framework and Guidance on Road Right of Way Adjustments in the Philippines

Introduction to Road Right of Way (RROW)

A Road Right of Way (RROW) is a legal easement that allows one property to have access to a public road through another property. Under Philippine law, easements, including RROWs, are primarily governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 613–629.

The request for and granting of an RROW involves delicate balancing: ensuring access for the dominant estate (property benefiting from the RROW) while respecting the property rights of the servient estate (property burdened by the RROW). Conflicts, such as the one described above, often arise when there is a request to modify an already granted RROW.

Key Legal Considerations

Right of the Dominant Estate to Request an RROW
- Article 649 of the Civil Code grants the owner of a dominant estate the right to demand a passage to a public road if their property is landlocked or has insufficient access.
- The servient estate (the property through which the RROW passes) must accommodate the request under specific conditions:
  - The passage must be indispensable for the use of the dominant estate.
  - The shortest and least prejudicial route must be used.
- The dominant estate owner must compensate the servient estate for any loss or damage caused.
Modification or Enlargement of an RROW
- Modifications to an existing RROW, such as increasing its width, require justification. Article 623 of the Civil Code provides that easements cannot impose unnecessary burdens beyond what is essential.
- The standard width of an RROW is not explicitly defined in law but is guided by customary use, agreements between parties, and local government regulations. For example, some municipal ordinances require specific widths for fire lanes, utility access, or public safety purposes.
Building Restrictions and Protections
- Under Article 619, constructions existing on the servient estate are protected unless they obstruct or prevent the reasonable use of the easement. An RROW cannot force the demolition of structures unless it was established prior to construction or with proper notice.
- If the servient estate owner has constructed a building in good faith and in compliance with the originally agreed RROW, they may have legal grounds to resist modifications that impose undue burden or loss.

Analysis of the Current Situation

Binding Nature of the Original Agreement
- If the 2-meter RROW was established through mutual agreement, it is legally binding unless amended by both parties or modified by court order. Agreements documented in a public deed or notarized instrument hold even greater evidentiary weight.
- The demand for a wider RROW must be assessed for necessity. If the dominant estate can function adequately with the 2-meter width, their request for 3 meters may lack legal basis.
Effect of Existing Construction
- The existence of a building complicates the matter. Structures erected in good faith on the servient estate are protected under Article 526 and Article 528 of the Civil Code. The servient estate owner cannot be compelled to demolish a lawfully constructed building unless compensation is provided or the easement is deemed indispensable.
Burden of Proof
- The party requesting the modification bears the burden of proving the necessity for a wider RROW. The servient estate owner may challenge the request if the existing arrangement sufficiently serves the purpose.
Local Government Regulations
- Some municipalities may have zoning laws or fire safety regulations that mandate wider RROWs. Verification with the local government unit (LGU) is critical to understanding whether the 3-meter request is based on regulatory requirements or simply the preference of the neighbor.

Legal Remedies and Recommendations

Amicable Settlement
- Propose a meeting with the neighbor to discuss alternatives. For example:
  - Suggest adjustments that do not require demolition.
  - Explore compensation for any modification to the existing RROW.
Seek a Court Declaration
- File a petition for declaratory relief if negotiations fail. This allows the court to determine the validity and extent of the RROW under the circumstances.
Defend Existing Rights
- If litigation ensues, present evidence of the original agreement, the necessity of the existing building, and the adequacy of the current RROW.
- Highlight potential prejudice or loss caused by the demanded modification.
Consult the LGU
- Verify if local ordinances mandate specific RROW widths. If the LGU does require a 3-meter RROW, discuss compliance timelines or potential adjustments that minimize impact.

Important Legal Principles and Case Law

Indispensability
- In Alfonso v. Andres (G.R. No. L-26462), the Supreme Court emphasized that an RROW must be indispensable for the dominant estate’s use and must impose the least burden on the servient estate.
Reasonableness
- In Mendoza v. De Guzman (G.R. No. L-38939), the Court ruled that an RROW should be reasonable and balanced, protecting the rights of both the dominant and servient estates.
Good Faith in Construction
- Article 448 protects the servient estate owner who builds in good faith, affirming their right to just compensation if compelled to modify or demolish a structure.

Conclusion

Your rights as the servient estate owner are strongly protected under Philippine law. The neighbor’s demand for a wider RROW must be justified as indispensable, and they must bear the cost of any adjustments. If the 2-meter RROW suffices, their request may lack legal merit. Furthermore, the existence of your building in good faith strengthens your position.

We recommend consulting with a lawyer to formalize your position and, if necessary, assert your rights through proper legal channels. Document all interactions, agreements, and communications for evidence. Always verify local regulations to ensure compliance with municipal requirements.