Letter to an Attorney:

Dear Attorney,

Good evening. I would like to seek your guidance regarding a legal matter involving a public right-of-way. The situation is as follows: a right-of-way was previously donated for public use, allowing access for individuals from an adjoining area. Now, the question has arisen: is it legally permissible to revoke or close this donated public right-of-way, thereby restricting access to those using it?

Your expertise and advice on this matter would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Property Owner

Legal Analysis: Can a Public Right-of-Way Be Revoked or Closed?

A public right-of-way is a legal provision granting individuals access through private or public property for specific purposes. In the Philippines, the legal framework governing rights-of-way is primarily based on the Civil Code of the Philippines, various special laws, and relevant jurisprudence. Below is a comprehensive discussion addressing whether a donated public right-of-way can be revoked or closed.

Nature of a Public Right-of-Way

A right-of-way can arise in different forms:

Voluntary Easement: Established through the agreement of the property owner, typically formalized in a written deed or donation.
Legal Easement: Imposed by law, such as when a property is landlocked, under Article 649 of the Civil Code, which mandates the provision of a compulsory right-of-way.
Public Right-of-Way: Granted for public utility or benefit, often formalized through donation or expropriation.

When a property owner donates a portion of their property for public use as a right-of-way, the right becomes attached to the land and is subject to specific legal principles.

Key Considerations in Revoking or Closing a Public Right-of-Way

Donation is Irrevocable Once Accepted
Under Article 725 of the Civil Code, a donation, once accepted, is generally irrevocable unless there is a legal ground for revocation. Article 760 lists causes for revocation, such as ingratitude, non-fulfillment of conditions, or acts that render the donation ineffective.

In the case of a public right-of-way, acceptance by the public or a public authority constitutes sufficient acceptance. Once the donation is accepted and formalized (e.g., through a notarized deed or registration with the Registry of Deeds), it becomes irrevocable unless specific grounds for revocation apply.
Conditions Imposed on the Donation
If the donation included conditions for the use of the right-of-way, such as its purpose or limitations, non-compliance with these conditions might justify revocation. Article 764 of the Civil Code allows for the revocation of a donation if the donee fails to comply with the donor's conditions. However, in the case of a public right-of-way, such conditions must not contravene public policy.
Public Utility Doctrine
The donated right-of-way becomes a public utility once used by the public. Closing it may affect not only the rights of adjoining property owners but also the broader public, potentially resulting in legal disputes or administrative sanctions. Under Section 1, Article III of the Philippine Constitution, property cannot be deprived of its lawful use without due process of law.
Expropriation or Eminent Domain
If the right-of-way serves a public purpose, it may be subject to expropriation. Even if the donor attempts to revoke the donation, the government or affected parties could file an action to maintain the public easement on the basis of public necessity.
Impact on Neighboring Properties
Article 649 of the Civil Code imposes an obligation on property owners to provide a right-of-way if adjoining properties lack sufficient access to public roads. The revocation of a public right-of-way could result in a legal obligation to provide a replacement easement, particularly if it renders neighboring properties landlocked.
Prescription and Immemorial Use
If the right-of-way has been used openly, continuously, and adversely by the public for more than 30 years, it may acquire the nature of an easement by prescription. Revocation in such cases would not be feasible unless the donor can prove legal grounds to extinguish the easement.

Legal Remedies for Revocation or Closure

If the property owner believes they have valid grounds to revoke or close the public right-of-way, the following legal remedies may apply:

Judicial Action for Revocation
The property owner can file a case in court to revoke the donation, presenting evidence of non-compliance with conditions or other valid grounds under the Civil Code. Courts will weigh the donor’s rights against public interest.
Administrative Relief
If the right-of-way was established through government intervention (e.g., as part of a public infrastructure project), administrative remedies may include filing a petition with the relevant local government unit or agency to reconsider the designation of the easement.
Compensation for Expropriation
If the right-of-way is deemed indispensable for public use, the government may expropriate the property, compensating the donor in accordance with the law.

Possible Legal Challenges

Violation of Public Policy
Attempting to close or revoke a public right-of-way could be challenged on grounds of public policy, especially if it disrupts access for a significant number of individuals or public services.
Opposition from Affected Parties
Adjacent property owners or residents relying on the right-of-way could file a case for injunction to prevent its closure.
Government Action
Local government units, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), may intervene to preserve the public nature of the right-of-way, especially if its closure affects public infrastructure.

Jurisprudence and Examples

Case Law on Easements
Philippine courts have consistently upheld the importance of easements in promoting access and public utility. In Cruz v. Court of Appeals (1995), the Supreme Court emphasized that easements, once established, cannot be lightly extinguished without due process and valid legal grounds.
Public Roads and Private Property
In Republic v. Court of Appeals (1998), the Court ruled that public roads established through donation or prescription acquire a permanent public character, making revocation nearly impossible.
Balancing Private Rights and Public Interest
In cases like Manila Electric Company v. Amoros (2005), the Court balanced private property rights with the necessity of public access, underscoring the principle that private property rights must yield to the common good.

Conclusion

Closing or revoking a donated public right-of-way is a legally complex issue that requires balancing the donor’s rights with the interests of the public. Key considerations include the irrevocability of the donation, compliance with conditions, and the broader implications of restricting access. While legal remedies exist for revocation, courts are likely to prioritize public interest, particularly if the right-of-way serves an indispensable function.

It is advisable to consult a legal professional for guidance tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of the case.