You are on page 1of 13

Easement, defined 1. Easement of Light small windows, not more than 30 cm.

square, at the height of the ceiling joist, the purpose of which is to


It is and encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit admit light, and little air, but not View.
of a community or one or more persons or for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner. 2. Easement of View full or regular windows overlooking the
adjoining estate.
It is a real right, constituted on anothers property, corporeal and
immovable whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or Art. 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others, open
allowing somebody else to do something on his property, for the benefit of through the party wall any window or aperture of any kind. (580)
another person or tenement.

Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an


immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different
owner.

The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the


dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate. (530)
P ro p e rty A P ro p e rty B
Modes of Acquiring Easements

Art. 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by


virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. (537a)

Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in


the preceding article, the time of possession shall be computed thus: in P a r ty W a ll
positive easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant
estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement,
commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate; and in negative
easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate
S tre e t
forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner
of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without
Illustration zz
the easement. (538a)

Note:
SECTION 5. - Easement of Light and View

This section deals with two kinds of easements: Prohibition to make an opening thru the party wall

1 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View


Example:
R iv e r
A and B are co-owners of a party wall. (see illustration zz) A cannot make
an opening on the wall without the permission of B. If A were allowed to do
this (without the Bs consent), there is a distinct possibility that A will later
claim the whole wall as his in view of the exterior sign. Moreover, it is as if
A were allowed to use the whole thickness of the wall.

Question: P ro p e rty B
Suppose in the illustration zz, A makes the opening without Bs consent,
what will Bs right?

Answer:
B can order that the opening be closed unless of course a sufficient time
for prescription has elapsed 10 years from the opening of the window. Illustration ll O p e n e d W in d o w
(read Art. 668, par. 1) P a r ty W a ll

Art. 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of


light and view shall be counted:
P ro p e rty A

(1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a


party wall; or

O p e n e d W in d o w

P ro p e rty A P ro p e rty B
Note:
Illustration hh
When the easement of Light and View is Positive and Negative:

P a r ty W a ll
Positive easement
If the window is thru a party wall. Therefore the period of prescription
(2) From the Stime commences from the time the window is opened.
t r e e t of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of
the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on
the dominant estate. (n)

2 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View


Note: The mere opening of the window doesnt create the easement it is
only when after a sufficient lapse of time the window still remains open, the Answer:
easement of light and view is created. Yes, because although more than 10 years had elapsed since the opening
of the window, still less than 10 years have elapsed since the notarial
On the case of Fabie v. Lichauco, G.R. No. L-3598, July 24, 1908 prohibition. Remember that what A is trying to obtain is a negative
The Supreme court held that, Even if the window is on ones own wall, still easement.
the easement would be positive if the window is on a balcony or projection
extending over into the adjoining land. Art. 669. When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the owner of
a wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land
Negative easement: belonging to another, can make in it openings to admit light at the height of
If the window is thru ones own wall, that is, thru a wall of the dominant the ceiling joints or immediately under the ceiling, and of the size of thirty
state. centimeters square, and, in every case, with an iron grating imbedded in
the wall and with a wire screen.
On the case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, GR No. 911, March 12, 1903
The Supreme court held that, the time for the period of prescription
should begin from the time of notarial prohibition upon the adjoining owner. Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in
which the openings are made can close them should he acquire part-
ownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the contrary.
Problems:
He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by
Question no. 1: raising a wall thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an
A and B own a party wall. A, without Bs consent, made an opening in the easement of light has been acquired. (581a)
party wall on December 9, 1956. In 1957, may B still close the opening?
Note:
Answer:
Yes, for no easement has yet been acquired by A. (read Art. 668, par. 1)
In this Article, the openings or windows referred to in this article are for
light, not view, hence the conditions or restrictions set for them.
Question no 2:
In question no. 1, can B close the window on December 10, 1966?
Restrictions referred to by Article 669:
Answer:
No, for more than 10 years have elapse; and A has already acquired the 1. Maximize size e.g. 30 cm. square, (not more than 30 cm.
easement (read Art. 668, par. 1; Art. 620) length or width)
2. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
Question no. 3: 3. There must be wire screen
A and B are adjoining owners. In 1956, A made an opening in his own wall.
In 1961, A makes a formal notarial demand on B, prohibiting him to 4. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists (beam) or
obstruct the view, In 1967, may B still set up an obstruction? immediately under the ceiling.
3 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
Question:
A has made restricted windows on his own wall for light. What can the
adjoining or abutting owner do?

Answer:
The adjoining owner can a) He can obstruct the light by constructing a
higher building on his own land or by raising a blocking wall; b) If the wall
becomes a party wall, he can close the window, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary. (read Art. 669)

Art. 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections


which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement
can be made, without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in
which they are made and such contiguous property.

Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such conterminous


property be had, unless there be a distance of sixty centimeters.
T T T T
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
(582a) T T
Art. 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be P ro p e rty B
P ro p e rty B
measured in cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall when the
openings do not project, from the outer line of the latter when they do, and
in cases of oblique view from the dividing line between the two properties.
(583)

P a r ty W a ll P a rty W a ll 6 cm
2 M e te r s D is ta n c e

O p e n e d W in d o w
O p e n e d W in d o w
P ro p e r ty A
P ro p e rty A
4 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
T T
T T T T I ll u s t r a t io n u u
I llu s t r a t io n o o
b. Regular windows can be opened provided that the proper
distances are followed.

Proper distances:

a. Windows having direct views, observe at least 2 meters distance


between the wall having the windows and the boundary line.
b. Windows having side or oblique views, observe a distance of at
least 60 cms. Between the boundary line and nearest edge of the
window.

Rules as to terraces:

Article 670 applies also to terraces, if there are railings (since the railings
afford protection to the viewer), but not if there are no railings (since
the lack of protection makes difficult their use as windows)

Question:
On his wall, one meter away from the boundary line, A opened regular
windows with direct views. May A be ordered to close them, at any time?

Answer:
A may be ordered to close them, provided that the adjoining owner makes
the demand for the closure within the period of 10 years from the opening
of the window, otherwise his right of closure will be deemed prescribed.
(Soriano v Sternberg, November 18, 1920)

Note: The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to


prescription. It means that the mere non-observance of these distances
doesnt give rise to prescription because this being a negative easement,
Note: a notarial prohibition is still required before the period of prescription will
commence to run.
Rules for Regular Windows:
Art. 672. The provisions of Article 670 are not applicable to buildings
a. Articles 670 and 671 deal with regular, full windows separated by a public way or alley, which is not less than three meters
(distinguished from the restricted windows referred to in Art. wide, subject to special regulations and local ordinances. (584a)
669)
5 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
Alley

Building A Building B

Illustration yy

Art. 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have direct
views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining property, the
owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance of
three meters to be measured in the manner provided in Article 671. Any
stipulation permitting distances less than those prescribed in Article 670 is
void. (585a)

Title, defined

Refers to agreement, will, donation, or prescription.


B a lc o n y

P ro p e rty A
Examples:A and B are adjoining owners, By virtue of a contract, B agreed
P r o p e rty B
to give A an easement of view over his land. In the absence of any
stipulation about distance, B (servient owner) cannot construct a building
D is t a n c e to b e m e a s u r e d
on his own land at less than a distance of three meters from the boundary
line. However, the distance may be increased or decreased provided that
the minimum distances prescribed in Article 670 are observed. The same
may be said of an easement of view acquired by prescription.
Illu s t r a tio n m m R iv e r
6 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
On the case of Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, 108 Phil. 889 Held:
Yes. The Court held that Article 624 of the Civil code provides that the
The Supreme court held that, if an estate has easement of light and view existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
under Article 624, the neighbor cannot construct on his lot unless he established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is
observes the 3-meter rule. alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue actively and
passively, unless at the time the ownership of the two estate is divided,
In this section are Digested cases pertaining to Easement of Light contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them or the sign is
and View: made to disappear before the instrument is executed. The existence of the
doors and windows in the northeastern side is equivalent to a title for the
Gargantos v. Yanon visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that characterizes its
108 Phil. 889 existence. While the law declares that the easement is to continue the
easement actually arises for the first time only upon alienation of either
estate, inasmuch as before that time there is no easement to speak of,
Facts: there being but one owner of both estates.
The record discloses that late Francisco Sanz subdivided his lot into three
and then sold each to different persons. One was purchased by Guillermo Cortes v. Yu-Tibo
Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vecente Veza. Another portion with a GR No. 911, March 12, 1903
house of strong materials was sold to respondent Tan Yanon. This house
has on its northeastern side, doors and windows over-looking the third
portion, which, together with the camarin and small building thereon, after Facts:
passing through several hands, was finally acquired by petitioner Juan The house No.65 Calle Rosario, property of the wife of the plaintiff, has
Gargantos. Gargantos applied to the Municipal Mayor for a permit to certain windows therein, through which it receives light and air, said
demolish the old camarin, the latter granted it to him. He applied for windows opening on the adjacent house, No. 63 of the same street; that
another permit to construct a combined residential house and warehouse these windows have been in existence since the year 1843, and that the
on his lot. Respondent Yanon opposed the approval of his application. defendant, the tenant of the said house No. 63, has commenced certain
Because the provincial fiscal and district engineer recommended the work with the view to raising the roof of the house in such a manner that
granting of the building permit, respondent filed an action to restrain one-half of one of the windows in said house No. 65 has been covered,
petitioner from constructing a building that would prevent the respondent thus depriving the building of a large part of the air and light formerly
from receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of his received through the window. The court practically finds the preceding
house. However, the CFI of Romblon dismissed the complaint. On appeal, facts, and further finds that the plaintiff has not proven that he has, by any
the CA enjoined defendant from constructing his building unless he erects formal act, prohibited the owner of house No. 63 from making
the same at a distance of not less than three meters from the boundary improvements of any kind therein at any time prior to the complaint.
line of his property, in conformity with Article 673 of the New Civil Code.
The contention of the plaintiff is that by the constant and uninterrupted use
Issue: of the windows during a period of fifty-nine years he acquired by
Whether or not the property of respondent Tan Yanon has an easement of prescription an easement of light in favor of the house No.65, and as a
light and view against the property of petitioner Gargantos. servitude upon house No.63, and, consequently, has acquired the right to
restrain the making of any improvements in the latter house which might in
7 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
any manner be prejudicial to the enjoyment of the easement. He contends have commenced to run, the act with which it must necessarily commence
that the easement of light is positive; and that therefore the period of not having been performed.
possession for the purposes of the acquisition of a prescriptive title is to When a person open windows in his own building he does nothing more
begin from the date on which the enjoyment of the same commenced, or, than exercise an act of ownership inherent in the right of property with no
in other words, applying the doctrine to this case, from the time that said limitations other than those established by law. By reason of the fact that
windows were opened with the knowledge of the owner of the house such an act is performed wholly on a thing which is wholly the property of
No.63, and without opposition on his part. However, the defendant the one opening the window, it does not in itself establish any easement,
contends that the easement is negative, and that therefore the time for the because the property is used by its owner in the exercise of dominion, and
prescriptive acquisition thereof must begin from the date on which the not as the exercise of an easement. It is that the use if the windows
owner of the dominant estate may have prohibited, by a formal act, the opened in a wall on ones own property, in the absence of some covenant
owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful or express agreement to the contrary, is regarded as an act of mere
but for the existence of the easement. tolerance on the part of the owner of the abutting property and does not
create any right to maintain the windows to the prejudice of the latter. The
The court ruled that the easement of light is negative. mere toleration of such an act does not imply on the part of the abutting
owner a waiver of his right to freely build upon his land as high as he may
Issue: see fit, nor does it avail the owner of the windows for the effects of
Whether or not the easement of light in the case of windows opened in possession according to Art.1942 of the Civil Code, because it is a mere
ones own wall is negative. possession at will. From all this it follows that the easement of light with
respect to the openings made in ones own edifice does not consist
Held: precisely in the fact of opening them or using them. The easement really
Yes. The Supreme Court said that the case involves windows opened in a consists in prohibiting or restraining the adjacent owner from doing
wall belonging to the wife of the plaintiff and it is of their opinion that the anything which may tend to cut off or interrupt the light; in short, it is limited
windows opened in ones own wall is of negative character, and, as such, to the obligation of not impeding the light.
can not be acquired by prescription under Art.621 of the Civil Code, except Fabie v. Lichauco
by counting the time of possession from the date on which the owner of G.R. No. L-3598, July 24, 1908
the dominant estate may, by a formal act, have prohibited the owner of the
servient estate from doing something which it would be lawful for him to do Facts:
were it not for the easement. That, in consequence thereof, the plaintiff, Petitioner Miguel Fabie applied for the registration of his property in Manila
not having executed any formal act of opposition to the right of the owner free from any encumbrances except the easement of right of way in favor
of house No.63 Calle Rosario (of which the defendant is tenant), to make of respondents Julita Lichauco and Hijos de Roxas. In addition to the said
therein improvements which might obstruct the light of house No.65 of the right of way, respondents also claim that of light and view and drainage.
same street, the property of the wife of the appellant, at any time prior to However, the claim was later reduce only to that of the light and view.
the complaint, as found by the court below in the judgment assigned as
error, he has not acquired, nor could he acquire by prescription, such Lichauco cliamed that when Juan Bautista Coloma, the original owner of
easement of light, no matter how long a time might have elapsed since the both estates, established not only an easement of right of way but also
windows were opened in the wall of the said house no.65, because the that of light and view and that when both the properties were alienated, the
period which the law demands for such prescriptive acquisition could not apparent signs were not removed. The apparent sign allegedly consists of
a gallery with windows through which light is admitted. It was supported on
8 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
columns erected on the ground belonging to the petitioner and the balcony since it has been positively shown that the said balconies exceed the limit
on Lichaucos property is supported by uprights erected on the land by of the lot owned by the former, nor less that they invade the atmospheric
petitioner. The parties admitted the existence of such gallery. The house area of the lot belonging to the latter, it follows that, even in accordance
was now a frontage of 18 meters and 60 centimeters, of which 16 meters with the theory maintained by the respondents with which on account of its
and 60 centimeters correspond to the main part of the same, and 1 meter lack of basis, we consider it unnecessary to deal herein as to its other
and 90 centimeters to the gallery in question. It results, therefore, that at aspect, the easement of view, which might result in such case from the
the present day, the house has nearly 2 meters more frontage than when it existence of the balconies alluded to, would be negative and not a positive
was alienated by Coloma. Therefore, at the present day the house is one, because the erection of the same would not constitute, according to
erected partly on the land belonging to the owner and partly, the gallery, their own statement, an invasion of the right of another, but the lawful
over a lot belonging to another; that is, over that of the petitioner. When it exercise of the right inherent to the dominion of the respondents to
was sold in October, 1848, no portion of the house occupied the lot last construct within their own lot. And as said easement is negative, it cannot
mentioned, but the entire building was erected over a lot belonging to the have prescribed in favor of the property of the respondents in the absence
owner as set forth in the instrument of sale. of any act of opposition, according to the agreement, by which they or their
principals would have prohibited the petitioner or his principals to do any
The lower court held that the right of way and drainage exist in favor of the work which obstruct the balconies in question, inasmuch as said act of
respondents respective properties. The claim as to the easement of light opposition is what constitutes the necessary and indispensable point of
and view was dismissed by the court. departure for computing the time required by law for the prescription of
negative easements. Thus, the judgment appealed from was affirmed in
Issue: toto by the Court.
Whether or not Respondents are entitled to the easement of light and
view.
Purugganan v. Paredes
Held: 69 SCRA 69
No. The burden is not on the petitioner to prove on what time the gallery in
controversy was constructed inasmuch as he limits himself to sustaining Facts:
and defending the freedom of his property, denying the easement o flight Plaintiff-appellee Emilio Purugganan is the owner of a piece of lot
and view of the respondent pretends to impose over it. A property is subdivided as Lot 1 and Lot 2, situated at Abra, adjacent to and bounded
assumed to be from all encumbrance unless the contrary is proved. on the North by the lot of defendant-appellant Felisa Paredes. The lots of
Respondent who claims the said easement is obliged to prove the the plaintiff-appellee are subject to an easement of drainage in favor of the
aforementioned gallery, in which the apparent sign of the easement is defendants-appellants fully quoted in the Decree of Registration.
made to consist in the present case, existed at the time of ownership of In or about March 1951, the defendants-appellants constructed a house on
her property and that of the petitioner were separated. And inasmuch as their lot adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of plaintiff-appellee in a manner that the
this issue has not been proved, the claim of the respondents as to the southern side of their house is exactly on the brick wall, the southern side
easements of the light and view which the petitioner does not admit, must of which is the demarcation line between the plaintiff-appellee and the
of necessity be dismissed. defendants-appellants, demolishing said brick wall and built thereon the
southern wall of their house with 3 windows. The house constructed by the
Therefore, it does not appear from the agreement of the parties that the defendants-appellants is 2-1/2 meters longer than the length of roofing
respondents has balconies over the land of the petitioner; and as it is, allowed in the Decree of Registration, and has an outer roofing if 1.20
9 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
meters, protruding over the property of the plaintiff-appellee which is .20 Defendants-appellants also blamed the trial court for ruling that they have
meters wider than that allowed in the same Decree of Registration, and not acquired an easement of light and view of the property of the plaintiff-
the rain water from GI roofing falls about 3 meters inside Lots 1 and 2 of appellee. The trial courts ruling that defendants-appellants have not
the plaintiff-appellee. The defendants-appellants also placed 3 windows acquired and easement of light and view on the property is based on
each on the first and second floors of their house on the side facing lots 1 Sec.39 of the Land Registration Act, which states that if there are
and 2 of plaintiff-appellee. From the time the defendants-appellants started easement or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which
to construct their house, the plaintiff-appellee has repeatedly and for any reason have failed to be registered, such easement or rights shall
continuously been demanding from the defendants-appellants that the remain so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure, and shall be held to
construction of their house be in accordance with the easement, but the pass with the land until cut off or extinguished by the registration of the
defendants-appellants refused to observe the easement and to close their servient estate or in any other manner. An easement is cut off or
windows. They also prohibited the plaintiff-appellee from constructing a extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens
party wall between points 1 and 2 of Lot 1 and between points 2 and 3 and System without the easement being annotated on the corresponding
4 of Lot 1. certificate of title, pursuant to Sec. 39 of the Land Registartion Act (Act
496).
Defendants-appellants alleged that the plaintiff-appellee was the private
surveyor who surveyed their lot in 1925 and that in the course his survey
he had acted in bad faith when he excluded the portion of their land, which
was the subject, matter of their opposition to the registration of plaintiff-
appellees lots; that they constructed their house in 1950 without any
protest from the plaintiff-appellee and was almost complete when the Masongsong v. Flores
Decree of Registration was issued by the court; that the plaintiff-appellee 57 Phil. 243
knew fully well that the defendants-appellants were merely reconstructing
a house which had been existing prior to the bombing of Bangued in 1945; Facts:
and that the brick wall standing along the house is exclusively owned by Petitioner Alejandro Masongsong is the owner of a registered land in
them. Manila while Respondent Victoria Flores, is the owner of an adjoining lot
where a house has windows overlooking the adjoining property of
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Masongsong, leaving a distance of less than two meters between the two
defendants; ordering the defendants to reconstruct the roof and eaves of houses. Separating the two houses is public alley. The title of petitioner
their house on the southern side now existing on their lot such that the extends over such alley.
falling water shall not fall on curve into the lots of the plaintiff beyond one
meter from the boundary line and by 8-1/2 meters in length and to remove Issue:
the said protruding eaves and roof. Whether or not an alley constructed in accordance with the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila, and open to the public, falls within the
Issue: provisions of the Civil code concerning the easements of light and view
Whether or not the failure to have easement annotated on title inapplicable to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare.
extinguishes the easement of light and view.
Held:
Held:
10 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View
The Court held that a private alley open to the public, under the instant case, the windows are in a wall not a party wall adjoining the
circumstances of this case, falls within the exception provided by article Choco estate and the windows are more or less than 30cm 2 and have a
584 of the Civil Code to article 582 thereof, and that accordingly the wire screen but there does not appear to be the iron grate embedded in
plaintiff has no legal cause of action. the wall. The Chocos files a case to close all the windows of defendants
building. The court ruled in their favor but did not order the permanent
Article 582 of the Civil Code provides that no windows or balconies or closing of window 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 because only window 7 was not under
other similar projections which directly overlook the adjoining property may the ceiling, and window 1 in the balcony of the back part of defendants
be opened or built without leaving a distance of not less than two meters building. Hence. This appeal. The lower court said that window 1 in the
between the wall in which they are built and such adjoining property. balcony overlooks Calle Padre Rada and that though the Chocos lot can
Article 584 of the Civil Code makes the provisions of article 582 be seen from this window, it is not contiguous to their property.
inapplicable to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare. Article 584
must be harmonized with municipal ordinances. Issues:
(1) Whether or not window 1 should be closed.
Severina and Flora Choco v. Santamaria (2) Whether or not windows 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 should be permanently
21 Phil. 132 closed.

Facts:
Defendant Santamaria is in possession of a parcel of land on the corner of Held:
Calles Pescadores and P.Rada in Tondo, Manila. There he erected a (1) Yes. If it is in front of the Chocos lot, it is unquestionable that it
house flush with the boundary line of the adjacent property; that the directly overlooks the same; but even though it did not only a side or
plaintiffs are the owners of the land on both sides of defendants house. oblique view of the lot could be obtained from it, it could not be kept open,
Defendant made several openings and windows in the walls of the house since between it and the Chocos property, there does not intervene the
on both sides overlooking the property of the plaintiffs Choco. Although a distance required by law- that of 2m in the 1 st case, and 60 cm in the 2nd
written protest has been made by the plaintiffs and an amicable case. In reality, there is no distance at all between the said window and the
adjustment has been suggested, the two parties failed to reach a Chocos lot because as the Supreme Court has said, the window is
compromise, hence, no adjustment was made on the windows. Apparently, perpendicular to the boundary line of the said lot; therefore, its opening is
the windows of the defendants building miserably failed the requisites a manifest violation of Art. 582 of the Civil Code (Article 670, New Civil
provided by law: either the windows under the ceiling did not comply with Code) which states that:
30cm2 requirement, or the windows only had wire screening when what is
required by law is an iron grate embedded in the wall and a wire screen. Windows with direct views, or balconies or any similar openings projecting
The rear wall windows were 50 x 80 cm. The right wall windows were 25 x over the estate of the neighbor, cannot be made if there is not a distance
35 cm in the 2nd storey , and 25 x 25 cm in the 1 st storey. The other of at least 2m between the wall in which they are built and said estate.
windows were 35 x 67 cm, and 75 x 90, all of which covered by wire Neither can side nor oblique views be opened over said property unless
screening only. The law provides in Article 581 of the Civil Code (article there is a distance of 60cm.
669, New Civil Code), the owner of a wall which is not a party wall,
adjoining anothers estate, amy make in it windows or openings to admit Hence, the defendant is ordered to close finally and forever window 1.
light at the height of the ceiling joists or immediately under the ceiling,
30cm2 , with an iron grate embedded in the wall and a wire screen. In the

11 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View


(2) No. They cannot be permanently closed because only window 7 is would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view
not immediately under the ceiling (techos). By techo is understood that a of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and
part of a construction which covers the rooms under it and certainly forms the consequential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed
one of the essential parts of every story. A story is composed of earth, to petitioner, as to require her alone to make the adjustments necessary
pavement and ceiling, the latter, that is, the ceiling, being part of the story for the observance of the 2-meter eaves-to-eaves distance from her
that is visible to the observer situated below in the room covered by it. neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be exacted, the
Consequently, every storey has a ceiling, and not, as the Chocos maintain, adjustments should be made not only by petitioner, but also by the
the upper one alone. If windows 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 comply with respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the
requirements of the law under Article 581 (Article 669, New Civil Code) injunction.
they can be reopened.
Granting that in the instant case an easement of light and view was
Cid v. Javier acquired by prescription, it was cut off or extinguished by the registration
No. L-14116; January 20, 1961 of the servient estate under the Torrens System without the easement
being annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to Sec.
Facts: 39 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496).
Petitioner's construction of a building allegedly being made in violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909 of the municipality of Laoag, Soriano vs Sternberg, November 18, 1920
and in disregard of respondent's right to light and view. Respondents'
house, as well as that of petitioner, are within their respective properties Facts:
that respondents' wall stands only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the The plaintiff desires to obtain a judicial order, to compel the defendant to
2 lots, whereas, the wall of petitioner's building was constructed 1 meter close the windows in the wall of his house adjacent to the property of the
from the boundary or 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the wall of the plaintiff, because the wall of defendants house is less than 2 meters from
house of respondents. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of the division line. The defendant pleads prescription and relies exclusively
the two houses overlap each other by 24 centimeters. This, the Court of upon this defense. The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs contention
Appeals declared to be violative of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909, and ordered the windows of the defendants house to be closed, with cost
amending Sections 1, 5, 6, and 13 of the Municipal Ordinance of June 3, against the defendant.
1903, which requires a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to
eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials. Issue:
Whether or not a right action to enforce Article 670 of the Civil Code may
Issue: be lost by failure to prosecute within the prescriptive period fixed by the
Whether or not __________ Code of Civil Procedure.

Held: It must be noted, however, that the Ordinance in question was Held:
adopted since 1909 and was, therefore, already in force at the time the It should be first noted that the defendant in this case has never prohibited
house of respondents was reconstructed in 1946 after the building the plaintiff from building on his, the plaintiffs, own land, any wall that he
originally erected thereon was burned in 1942. If respondents constructed may desire to construct. Further, it should be noted that the offending
their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner has edifice of the defendant was constructed in 1905. This was the year when
constructed hers, there would be no overlapping of the eaves and there the defendant violated the law. This was the date when the cause of action

12 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View


accrued. Nevertheless, the windows complained of were permitted to be
open for thirteen years without protest. The plaintiff must consequently, by
reason of his own laches, be considered to have waived any right which
he may have had to compel the windows to be closed.

13 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

You might also like