The Provincial Court of León has ruled in favor of a couple who wanted to close a gate on their property, so that their neighbors could not continue passing through their property to get to their house. The court considers that in this case there was no right of way legal, since the neighbors who claimed to enter through someone else’s land have their houses next to the public road, so going through the neighbor’s gate is not a necessity, but a “mere convenience” to avoid doing access works in their own home, which is why the definitive closure of the passage has been authorized.
According to the ruling of November 28, 2025, the neighbors claimed the right to permanently pass through a historic gate with a stone arch to access the back of their plots. They claimed that this step was the only viable one to enter with tractors or livestock. However, the owners of the land maintained that access was allowed only by “good will” and that their neighbors were not isolated, since their properties faced directly onto the main street and they could enable their own entrances by making renovations to its facades.
The Court of First Instance and Investigation of Villablino initially upheld the claim, forcing the owners to allow passage in exchange for a small compensation of 314 euros. But the owners, convinced that their right to private property was being violated, appealed the decision.
There is no need to invade someone else’s property if there is one’s own exit.
The Provincial Court of León revoked said decision based on article 564 of the Civil Code, which establishes that to impose a forced passage the property must be truly “enclaved”, that is, without any exit to the public road. According to the ruling, the right to property is fundamental and the easement is an exceptional measure that requires a “real, objective and non-fictitious need.”
After analyzing the expert reports, it was concluded that the plaintiffs had a direct facade to the street and that the alleged difficulties with access did not justify invading the neighbor’s house, since they are problems that must be resolved with works within their own plots.
The Court noted that the law does not cover the “simple difficulty, convenience or annoyance” of an owner to impose a perpetual burden on the adjoining property. As it is consolidated urban land, the ruling stressed that the owners have the obligation to adapt their properties and pay for the necessary infrastructure to obtain their own access, instead of expecting the neighbor to bear the traffic through their yard.
In this sense, he made it clear that if there is an alternative to going outside, even if it is more laborious, there is no legal right to demand passage through someone else’s property, since the need for passage cannot be confused with the desire to avoid work on one’s own home.
For all these reasons, the owners of the land may close the passage through the gate, since the right to enclose private property prevails over the convenience of the neighbors, as long as they have an alternative exit to the public road.