You own a house, but the only convenient way to reach the public road is through a passageway beside your neighbor's property. One day, your neighbor installs a steel gate across that passageway. The gate is not locked, but you must untie a wire whenever you want to pass.
Your neighbor insists that the gate is necessary for privacy and security. He also points out that you can reach the road through another route, although doing so requires passing through several other properties.
Can you demand the removal of the gate?
The Supreme Court answered this question in Noli Dela Cruz v. Jorivel Cariño, G.R. No. 270273, April 28, 2026, ruling that a gate obstructing an established easement of right of way may constitute a nuisance and may be ordered removed.
The Court also upheld an award of ₱50,000 in nominal damages against the property owner who installed the gate.
The Dispute: A Steel Gate Blocking Access to the Public Road
Jorivel Cariño owned a residential property in Las Piñas City. Her lot was surrounded by other properties, leaving her without adequate access to the public road except through an established passageway. That passageway crossed property owned by her neighbor, Noli Dela Cruz.
Importantly, the easement of right of way was already annotated on the Transfer Certificates of Title covering Dela Cruz's properties.However, after Cariño constructed a residential building, Dela Cruz fenced his property and installed a steel gate enclosing the passageway.
Cariño complained that the structure interfered with her ability to enter and leave her property. She sent a demand letter asking Dela Cruz to remove the obstruction. When he refused, she filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance with damages. Dela Cruz defended the gate, arguing that it protected his family's privacy and that Cariño could use another route.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in Cariño's favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Can a Neighbor Install a Gate Across an Established Right of Way?
Ownership of land does not necessarily give a property owner unrestricted authority to block an established easement.
An easement of right of way allows the owner of a property to pass through another person's land under circumstances recognized by law. When an easement has already been legally established and annotated on the property title, the owner of the burdened property must respect it.
In this case, Cariño's right to use the passageway was already recognized in the land titles.
The Supreme Court found that Dela Cruz's steel gate interfered with that existing right. His desire to protect his family's privacy did not justify obstructing Cariño's lawful access to the public road.
What Is a Nuisance Under Philippine Law?
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance to include conditions or structures that interfere with the free passage of a public road or impair another person's use of property.
Not every fence, gate, or structure is automatically a nuisance.
The law distinguishes between two types:
- Nuisance per se refers to something that constitutes a nuisance under all circumstances because it directly threatens public health or safety.
- Nuisance per accidens, on the other hand, becomes a nuisance because of its particular location, use, or surrounding circumstances. Its existence must be determined through an appropriate hearing.
The Supreme Court classified Dela Cruz's gate as a nuisance per accidens. The gate was not inherently unlawful. However, its placement across an established right of way prevented Cariño from freely using the passageway and interfered with her enjoyment of her property.
That made it legally objectionable under the circumstances.
Does It Matter That the Gate Was Not Locked?
No. One interesting aspect of the case was that the steel gate was not actually locked. Instead, it was secured using a wire that Cariño could untie whenever she needed to pass.
Dela Cruz apparently considered this sufficient because Cariño was not completely prevented from using the passageway.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
A gate does not have to be permanently locked before it can unlawfully obstruct a right of way. The Court recognized that requiring Cariño to untie the wire every time she needed to pass unnecessarily interfered with her established right of access.
An easement is not properly respected merely because the person entitled to use it can eventually overcome the obstruction.
What If Another Passageway Is Available?
Dela Cruz also argued that Cariño could reach the public road through another route behind her property. However, the alternative required her to pass through several gates belonging to other neighbors.
The Supreme Court considered this substantially less convenient than using the established passageway. More importantly, the existence of another possible route did not justify obstructing an easement that had already been legally recognized.
The Court emphasized that Cariño should not have been forced to take a more complicated route because of the gate installed by Dela Cruz.
Supreme Court Orders Removal of Gate and Upholds ₱50,000 Damages
The Supreme Court denied Dela Cruz's petition and affirmed the order requiring him to remove the steel gate at his own expense. It also upheld the award of ₱50,000 in nominal damages.
Nominal damages are awarded to recognize that a person's legal right has been violated, even without proof of a specific monetary loss.
The Court found that Dela Cruz had willfully interfered with Cariño's right of access. It further imposed legal interest of 6% per annum on the monetary award from the finality of the decision until full payment.
The ruling underscores an important principle: a property owner cannot disregard an established right of way simply because the passageway crosses land registered in that owner's name.
Need Legal Assistance With a Right of Way Dispute?
Disagreements involving blocked passageways, fences, gates, and access roads can seriously affect a property owner's ability to use and enjoy land.
Whether you need to enforce an established easement, seek the removal of an obstruction, or defend against a right of way claim, the applicable remedies depend on the property titles, existing agreements, and surrounding circumstances.
Cunanan Law Office provides legal assistance in right of way disputes, easement cases, abatement of nuisance, and other real estate and property disputes in Tarlac, Pampanga, Angeles City, Clark, and anywhere in the Philippines.
Contact Cunanan Law Office today at inquiries@mpeclaw.com or call (+63) 968-679-6617 to schedule a legal consultation.