P r o p e r t y A

P r o p e r t y B
S t r e e t
P a r t y W a l l
Easement, defined
It is and encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit
of a community or one or more persons or for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner.
It is a real right, constituted on another’s property, corporeal and
immovable whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or
allowing somebody else to do something on his property, for the benefit of
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. (!"#
Modes of Acquiring Easements

Art. 620. $ontinuous and apparent easements are ac%uired either by
virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. (!&a#
Art. 621. In order to ac%uire by prescription the easements referred to in
the preceding article, the time of possession shall be computed thus' in
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 e(ercise it upon the servient estate; and in negative
easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate
forbade, by an instrument ac)nowledged before a notary public, the owner
of the servient estate, from e(ecuting an act which would be lawful without
the easement. (!*a#
SECTIO !" # Easement of $ig%t and &ie'
This section deals with two )inds of easements'
1. Easement of $ig%t + small windows, not more than !" cm.
s%uare, at the height of the ceiling joist, the purpose of which is to
admit light, and little air, but not ,iew.
2. Easement of &ie' + full or regular windows overloo)ing the
adjoining estate.

Art. 667. -o part.owner may, without the consent of the others, open
through the party wall any window or aperture of any )ind. (*"#

Illustration ((
ote)
Pro%i*ition to ma+e an opening t%ru t%e party 'all
1 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
P r o p e r t y A
P r o p e r t y B
S t r e e t
P a r t y W a l l
O p e n e d W i n d o '
P r o p e r t y A
P r o p e r t y B
P a r t y W a l l
O p e n e d W i n d o '
, i - e r
E.ample)
A and / are co.owners of a party wall. (see illustration zz) A cannot
ma)e an opening on the wall without the permission of /. If A were
allowed to do this (without the B’s consent/, there is a distinct possibility
that A will later claim the whole wall as his in view of the e(terior sign.
0oreover, it is as if A were allowed to use the whole thic)ness of the wall.
0uestion)
1uppose in the illustration zz, A ma)es the opening without /’s consent,
what will /’s right2
Ans'er)
/ can order that the opening be closed unless of course a sufficient time
for prescription has elapsed + 3" years from the opening of the window.
(read Art. 668, par. 1)
Art. 668. The period of prescription for the ac%uisition of an easement of
light and view shall be counted'
(1) 4rom the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a
party wall; or
Illustration %%
(5# 4rom the time 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#
Illustration ll
ote)
W%en t%e easement of $ig%t and &ie' is Positi-e and egati-e)
Positi-e easement
If the window is thru a party wall. Therefore the period of prescription
commences from the time the window is opened.
2 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
-ote' The mere opening of the window doesn’t create the easement it is
only when after a sufficient lapse of time the window still remains open, the
easement of light and view is created.
On t%e case of 1a*ie -" $ic%auco, 2"," o" $#3!45, 6uly 78, 94:5
6The 1upreme court held that, 7ven if the window is on one’s own wall, still
the easement would be positive if the window is on a balcony or projection
e(tending over into the adjoining land.8
egati-e easement)
If the window is thru one’s own wall, that is, thru a wall of the dominant
state.
On t%e case of Cortes -" ;u#Ti*o, 2, o" 499, Marc% 97, 94:3
6The 1upreme court held that, the time for the period of prescription
should begin from the time of notarial prohibition upon the adjoining owner.
Pro*lems)
0uestion no" 9)
A and / own a party wall. A, without /’s consent, made an opening in the
party wall on 9ecember :, 3:;. In 3:&, may / still close the opening2
Ans'er)
<es, for no easement has yet been ac%uired by A. (read Art. 668, par. 1)
0uestion no 7)
In %uestion no. 3, can / close the window on 9ecember 3", 3:;;2
Ans'er)
-o, for more than 3" years have elapse; and A has already ac%uired the
easement (read Art. 668, par. 1; Art. 620)
0uestion no" 3)
A and / are adjoining owners. In 3:;, A made an opening in his own
wall. In 3:;3, A ma)es a formal notarial demand on /, prohibiting him to
obstruct the view, In 3:;&, may / still set up an obstruction2
Ans'er)
<es, because although more than 3" years had elapsed since the opening
of the window, still less than 3" years have elapsed since the notarial
prohibition. =emember that what A is trying to obtain is a negative
easement.
Art. 66. >hen the distances in Article ;&" are not observed, the owner of
a wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land
belonging to another, can ma)e in it openings to admit light at the height of
the ceiling joints or immediately under the ceiling, and of the si?e of thirty
centimeters s%uare, and, in every case, with an iron grating imbedded in
the wall and with a wire screen.
-evertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in
which the openings are made can close them should he ac%uire part.
ownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the contrary.
@e can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by
raising a wall thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an
easement of light has been ac%uired. (*3a#
ote)
In this Article, the openings or windows referred to in this article are for
lig%t, not view, hence the conditions or restrictions set for them.
,estrictions referred to *y Article <<4)
1. 0a(imi?e si?e + e.g. !" cm. s%uare, (not !ore than 30 c!.
len"th or width)
5. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
!. There must be wire screen
A. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists (beam# or
immediately under the ceiling.
Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
P r o p e r t y A
P r o p e r t y B
P a r t y W a l l
O p e n e d W i n d o '
7 M e t e r s = i s t a n c e
I l l u s t r a t i o n o o
T
T
T
T
T
T
P r o p e r t y A
P r o p e r t y B
P a r t y W a l l
O p e n e d W i n d o '
< c m
I l l u s t r a t i o n u u
T
T
T
T
T
T
0uestion)
A has made restricted windows on his own wall for light. >hat can the
adjoining or abutting owner do2
Ans'er)
The adjoining owner can a# @e can obstruct the light by constructing a
higher building on his own land or by raising a bloc)ing wall; b# If the wall
becomes a party wall, he can close the window, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary. (read Art. 66)
Art. 670. -o 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.
-either can side or obli%ue views upon or towards such conterminous
property be had, unless there be a distance of si(ty centimeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
(*5a#
Art" <>9" The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be
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 obli%ue view from the dividing line between the two properties.
(*!#
! Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
ote)
,ules for ,egular Windo's)
a. Articles ;&" and ;&3 deal with regular, full windows
(distin"uished #ro! the restricted windows re#erred to in Art.
66#
b. =egular windows can be opened provided that the proper
distances are followed.
Proper distances)
a. >indows having direct views, observe at least 5 meters distance
between the wall having the windows and the boundary line.
b. >indows having side or obli%ue views, observe a distance of at
least ;" cms. /etween the boundary line and nearest edge of the
window.
,ules as to terraces)
Article ;&" applies also to terraces, if there are railings (since the railin"s
a##ord protection to the $iewer), but not if there are no railings (since
the lac% o# protection !a%es di##icult their use as windows)
0uestion)
Bn his wall, one meter away from the boundary line, A opened regular
windows with direct views. 0ay A be ordered to close them, at any time2
Ans'er)
A may be ordered to close them, provided that the adjoining owner ma)es
the demand for the closure within the period of 3" years from the opening
of the window, otherwise his right of closure will be deemed prescribed.
(&oriano $ &tern'er", (o$e!'er 18, 120)
Note: “The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to
prescription.” It means that the mere non-observance of these distances
doesn’t give rise to prescription because this being a negative easement,
a notarial prohibition is still reuired before the period of prescription !ill
commence to run.
Art" <>7" The provisions of Article ;&" are not applicable to buildings
separated by a public way or alley, which is not less than three meters
wide, subject to special regulations and local ordinances. (*Aa#
" Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
P r o p e r t y B
/ a l c o n y
P r o p e r t y A
= i s t a n c e t o * e m e a s u r e d
, i - e r
I l l u s t r a t i o n m m
Building A
Building B
Alley
Illustration yy
Art" <>3" >henever by any title a right has been ac%uired to have direct
views, balconies or belvederes overloo)ing an adjoining property, the
owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance of
three meters to be measured in the manner provided in Article ;&3. Any
stipulation permitting distances less than those prescribed in Article ;&" is
void. (*a#
Title, defined
=efers to agreement, will, donation, or prescription.
E.amples)A and / are adjoining owners, /y virtue of a contract, / agreed
to give A an easement of view over his land. In the absence of any
stipulation about distance, / (ser$ient owner# cannot construct a building
on his own land at less than a distance of three meters from the boundary
line. @owever, the distance may be increased or decreased provided that
the minimum distances prescribed in Article ;&" are observed. The same
may be said of an easement of view ac%uired by prescription.
# Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
On t%e case of 2argantos -" Tan ;anon, 9:5 P%il" 554
6The 1upreme court held that, if an estate has easement of light and view
under Article ;5A, the neighbor cannot construct on his lot unless he
observes the !.meter rule.8
In t%is section are =igested cases pertaining to Easement of $ig%t
and &ie')
2argantos -" ;anon
9:5 P%il" 554
1acts)
The record discloses that late 4rancisco 1an? subdivided his lot into three
and then sold each to different persons. Bne was purchased by Cuillermo
Tengtio who subse%uently sold it to ,ecente ,e?a. Another portion with a
house of strong materials was sold to respondent Tan <anon. This house
has on its northeastern side, doors and windows over.loo)ing the third
portion, which, together with the camarin and small building thereon, after
passing through several hands, was finally ac%uired by petitioner Duan
Cargantos. Cargantos applied to the 0unicipal 0ayor for a permit to
demolish the old camarin, the latter granted it to him. @e applied for
another permit to construct a combined residential house and warehouse
on his lot. =espondent <anon opposed the approval of his application.
/ecause the provincial fiscal and district engineer recommended the
granting of the building permit, respondent filed an action to restrain
petitioner from constructing a building that would prevent the respondent
from receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of his
house. @owever, the $4I of =omblon dismissed the complaint. Bn appeal,
the $A enjoined defendant from constructing his building unless 6he erects
the same at a distance of not less than three meters from the boundary
line of his property, in conformity with Article ;&! of the -ew $ivil $ode.8
Issue)
>hether or not the property of respondent Tan <anon has an easement of
light and view against the property of petitioner Cargantos.
?eld)
<es. The $ourt held that Article ;5A of the $ivil code provides that the
e(istence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is
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,
contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them or the sign is
made to disappear before the instrument is e(ecuted. The e(istence of the
doors and windows in the northeastern side is e%uivalent to a title for the
visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that characteri?es its
e(istence. >hile the law declares that the easement is to 6continue8 the
easement actually arises for the first time only upon alienation of either
estate, inasmuch as before that time there is no easement to spea) of,
there being but one owner of both estates.
Cortes -" ;u#Ti*o
2, o" 499, Marc% 97, 94:3
1acts)
The house -o.; $alle =osario, property of the wife of the plaintiff, has
certain windows therein, through which it receives light and air, said
windows opening on the adjacent house, -o. ;! of the same street; that
these windows have been in e(istence since the year 3*A!, and that the
defendant, the tenant of the said house -o. ;!, has commenced certain
wor) with the view to raising the roof of the house in such a manner that
one.half of one of the windows in said house -o. ; has been covered,
thus depriving the building of a large part of the air and light formerly
received through the window. The court practically finds the preceding
facts, and further finds that the plaintiff has not proven that he has, by any
formal act, prohibited the owner of house -o. ;! from ma)ing
improvements of any )ind therein at any time prior to the complaint.
The contention of the plaintiff is that by the constant and uninterrupted use
of the windows during a period of fifty.nine years he ac%uired by
prescription an easement of light in favor of the house -o.;, and as a
servitude upon house -o.;!, and, conse%uently, has ac%uired the right to
restrain the ma)ing of any improvements in the latter house which might in
any manner be prejudicial to the enjoyment of the easement. @e contends
that the easement of light is positive; and that therefore the period of
$ Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
possession for the purposes of the ac%uisition of a prescriptive title is to
begin from the date on which the enjoyment of the same commenced, or,
in other words, applying the doctrine to this case, from the time that said
windows were opened with the )nowledge of the owner of the house
-o.;!, and without opposition on his part. @owever, the defendant
contends that the easement is negative, and that therefore the time for the
prescriptive ac%uisition thereof must begin from the date on which the
owner of the dominant estate may have prohibited, by a formal act, the
owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful
but for the e(istence of the easement.
The court ruled that the easement of light is negative.
Issue)
>hether or not the easement of light in the case of windows opened in
one’s own wall is negative.
?eld)
<es. The 1upreme $ourt said that the case involves windows opened in a
wall belonging to the wife of the plaintiff and it is of their opinion that the
windows opened in one’s own wall is of negative character, and, as such,
can not be ac%uired by prescription under Art.;53 of the $ivil $ode, e(cept
by counting the time of possession from the date on which the owner of
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
were it not for the easement. That, in conse%uence thereof, the plaintiff,
not having e(ecuted any formal act of opposition to the right of the owner
of house -o.;! $alle =osario (of which the defendant is tenant#, to ma)e
therein improvements which might obstruct the light of house -o.; of the
same street, the property of the wife of the appellant, at any time prior to
the complaint, as found by the court below in the judgment assigned as
error, he has not ac%uired, nor could he ac%uire by prescription, such
easement of light, no matter how long a time might have elapsed since the
windows were opened in the wall of the said house no.;, because the
period which the law demands for such prescriptive ac%uisition could not
have commenced to run, the act with which it must necessarily commence
not having been performed.
>hen a person open windows in his own building he does nothing more
than e(ercise an act of ownership inherent in the right of property with no
limitations other than those established by law. /y reason of the fact that
such an act is performed wholly on a thing which is wholly the property of
the one opening the window, it does not in itself establish any easement,
because the property is used by its owner in the e(ercise of dominion, and
not as the e(ercise of an easement. It is that the use if the windows
opened in a wall on one’s own property, in the absence of some covenant
or e(press agreement to the contrary, is regarded as an act of mere
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
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
see fit, nor does it avail the owner of the windows for the effects of
possession according to Art.3:A5 of the $ivil $ode, because it is a mere
possession at will. 4rom all this it follows that the easement of light with
respect to the openings made in one’s own edifice does not consist
precisely in the fact of opening them or using them. The easement really
consists in prohibiting or restraining the adjacent owner from doing
anything which may tend to cut off or interrupt the light; in short, it is limited
to the obligation of not impeding the light.
1a*ie -" $ic%auco
2"," o" $#3!45, 6uly 78, 94:5
1acts)
Eetitioner 0iguel 4abie applied for the registration of his property in 0anila
free from any encumbrances e(cept the easement of right of way in favor
of respondents Dulita Fichauco and @ijos de =o(as. In addition to the said
right of way, respondents also claim that of light and view and drainage.
@owever, the claim was later reduce only to that of the light and view.
Fichauco cliamed that when Duan /autista $oloma, the original owner of
both estates, established not only an easement of right of way but also
that of light and view and that when both the properties were alienated, the
apparent signs were not removed. The apparent sign allegedly consists of
a gallery with windows through which light is admitted. It was supported on
columns erected on the ground belonging to the petitioner and the balcony
on Fichauco’s property is supported by uprights erected on the land by
% Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
petitioner. The parties admitted the e(istence of such gallery. The house
was now a frontage of 3* meters and ;" centimeters, of which 3; meters
and ;" centimeters correspond to the main part of the same, and 3 meter
and :" centimeters to the gallery in %uestion. It results, therefore, that at
the present day, the house has nearly 5 meters more frontage than when it
was alienated by $oloma. Therefore, at the present day the house is
erected partly on the land belonging to the owner and partly, the gallery,
over a lot belonging to another; that is, over that of the petitioner. >hen it
was sold in Bctober, 3*A*, no portion of the house occupied the lot last
mentioned, but the entire building was erected over a lot belonging to the
o!ner as set forth in the instrument of sale.
The lower court held that the right of way and drainage e(ist in favor of the
respondents’ respective properties. The claim as to the easement of light
and view was dismissed by the court.
Issue)
>hether or not =espondents are entitled to the easement of light and
view.
?eld)
-o. 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
and defending the freedom of his property, denying the easement o flight
and view of the respondent pretends to impose over it. A property is
assumed to be from all encumbrance unless the contrary is proved.
=espondent who claims the said easement is obliged to prove the
aforementioned gallery, in which the apparent sign of the easement is
made to consist in the present case, e(isted at the time of ownership of
her property and that of the petitioner were separated. And inasmuch as
this issue has not been proved, the claim of the respondents as to the
easements of the light and view which the petitioner does not admit, must
of necessity be dismissed.
Therefore, it does not appear from the agreement of the parties that the
respondents has balconies over the land of the petitioner; and as it is,
since it has been positively shown that the said balconies e(ceed the limit
of the lot owned by the former, nor less that they invade the atmospheric
area of the lot belonging to the latter, it follows that, even in accordance
with the theory maintained by the respondents with which on account of its
lac) of basis, we consider it unnecessary to deal herein as to its other
aspect, the easement of view, which might result in such case from the
e(istence of the balconies alluded to, would be negative and not a positive
one, because the erection of the same would not constitute, according to
their own statement, an invasion of the right of another, but the lawful
e(ercise of the right inherent to the dominion of the respondents to
construct within their own lot. And as said easement is negative, it cannot
have prescribed in favor of the property of the respondents in the absence
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
wor) which obstruct the balconies in %uestion, inasmuch as said act of
opposition is what constitutes the necessary and indispensable point of
departure for computing the time re%uired by law for the prescription of
negative easements. Thus, the judgment appealed from was affirmed in
toto by the $ourt.
Purugganan -" Paredes
<4 SC,A <4
1acts)
Elaintiff.appellee 7milio Eurugganan is the owner of a piece of lot
subdivided as Fot 3 and Fot 5, situated at Abra, adjacent to and bounded
on the -orth by the lot of defendant.appellant 4elisa Earedes. The lots of
the plaintiff.appellee are subject to an easement of drainage in favor of the
defendants.appellants fully %uoted in the 9ecree of =egistration.
In or about 0arch 3:3, the defendants.appellants constructed a house on
their lot adjacent to Fots 3 and 5 of plaintiff.appellee in a manner that the
southern side of their house is e(actly on the bric) wall, the southern side
of which is the demarcation line between the plaintiff.appellee and the
defendants.appellants, demolishing said bric) wall and built thereon the
southern wall of their house with ! windows. The house constructed by the
defendants.appellants is 5.3G5 meters longer than the length of roofing
allowed in the 9ecree of =egistration, and has an outer roofing if 3.5"
meters, protruding over the property of the plaintiff.appellee which is .5"
meters wider than that allowed in the same 9ecree of =egistration, and
& Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
the rain water from CI roofing falls about ! meters inside Fots 3 and 5 of
the plaintiff.appellee. The defendants.appellants also placed ! windows
each on the first and second floors of their house on the side facing lots 3
and 5 of plaintiff.appellee. 4rom the time the defendants.appellants started
to construct their house, the plaintiff.appellee has repeatedly and
continuously been demanding from the defendants.appellants that the
construction of their house be in accordance with the easement, but the
defendants.appellants refused to observe the easement and to close their
windows. They also prohibited the plaintiff.appellee from constructing a
party wall between points 3 and 5 of Fot 3 and between points 5 and ! and
A of Fot 3.
9efendants.appellants alleged that the plaintiff.appellee was the private
surveyor who surveyed their lot in 3:5 and that in the course his survey
he had acted in bad faith when he e(cluded the portion of their land, which
was the subject, matter of their opposition to the registration of plaintiff.
appellee’s lots; that they constructed their house in 3:" without any
protest from the plaintiff.appellee and was almost complete when the
9ecree of =egistration was issued by the court; that the plaintiff.appellee
)new fully well that the defendants.appellants were merely reconstructing
a house which had been e(isting prior to the bombing of /angued in 3:A;
and that the bric) wall standing along the house is e(clusively owned by
them.
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants; ordering the defendants to reconstruct the roof and eaves of
their house on the southern side now e(isting on their lot such that the
falling water shall not fall on curve into the lots of the plaintiff beyond one
meter from the boundary line and by *.3G5 meters in length and to remove
the said protruding eaves and roof.
Issue)
>hether or not the failure to have easement annotated on title
e(tinguishes the easement of light and view.
?eld)
9efendants.appellants also blamed the trial court for ruling that they have
not ac%uired an easement of light and view of the property of the plaintiff.
appellee. The trial court’s ruling that defendants.appellants have not
ac%uired and easement of light and view on the property is based on
1ec.!: of the Fand =egistration Act, which states that if there are
easement or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which
for any reason have failed to be registered, such easement or rights shall
remain so appurtenant not!ithstanding such failure, and shall be held to
pass !ith the land until cut off or e"tinguished b# the registration of the
servient estate or in an# other manner. An easement is cut off or
e(tinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens
1ystem without the easement being annotated on the corresponding
certificate of title, pursuant to 1ec. !: of the Fand =egistartion Act (Act
A:;#.
Masongsong -" 1lores
!> P%il" 783
1acts)
Eetitioner Alejandro 0asongsong is the owner of a registered land in
0anila while =espondent ,ictoria 4lores, is the owner of an adjoining lot
where a house has windows overloo)ing the adjoining property of
0asongsong, leaving a distance of less than two meters between the two
houses. 1eparating the two houses is public alley. The title of petitioner
e(tends over such alley.
Issue)
>hether or not an alley constructed in accordance with the =evised
Brdinances of the $ity of 0anila, and open to the public, falls within the
provisions of the $ivil code concerning the easements of light and view
inapplicable to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare.
?eld)
The $ourt held that a private alley open to the public, under the
circumstances of this case, falls within the e(ception provided by article
1' Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
*A of the $ivil $ode to article *5 thereof, and that accordingly the
plaintiff has no legal cause of action.
Article *5 of the $ivil $ode provides that 6no windows or balconies or
other similar projections which directly overloo) the adjoining property may
be opened or built without leaving a distance of not less than two meters
between the wall in which they are built and such adjoining property.8
Article *A of the $ivil $ode ma)es the provisions of article *5
inapplicable 6to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare8. Article *A
must be harmoni?ed with municipal ordinances.
Se-erina and 1lora C%oco -" Santamaria
79 P%il" 937
1acts)
9efendant 1antamaria is in possession of a parcel of land on the corner of
$alles Eescadores and E.=ada in Tondo, 0anila. There he erected a
house flush with the boundary line of the adjacent property; that the
plaintiffs are the owners of the land on both sides of defendant’s house.
9efendant made several openings and windows in the walls of the house
on both sides overloo)ing the property of the plaintiffs $hoco. Although a
written protest has been made by the plaintiffs and an amicable
adjustment has been suggested, the two parties failed to reach a
compromise, hence, no adjustment was made on the windows.
Apparently, the windows of the defendant’s building miserably failed the
re%uisites provided by law' either the windows under the ceiling did not
comply with !"cm
5
re%uirement, or the windows only had wire screening
when what is re%uired by law is an iron grate embedded in the wall and a
wire screen. The rear wall windows were " ( *" cm. The right wall
windows were 5 ( ! cm in the 5
nd
storey , and 5 ( 5 cm in the 3
st
storey. The other windows were ! ( ;& cm, and & ( :", all of which
covered by wire screening only. The law provides in Article *3 of the $ivil
$ode (article ;;:, -ew $ivil $ode#, 6the owner of a wall which is not a
party wall, adjoining another’s estate, amy ma)e in it windows or openings
to admit light at the height of the ceiling joists or immediately under the
ceiling, !"cm
5
, with an iron grate embedded in the wall and a wire screen.8
In the instant case, the windows are in a wall not a party wall adjoining the
$hoco estate and the windows are more or less than !"cm
5
and have a
wire screen but there does not appear to be the iron grate embedded in
the wall. The $hocos files a case to close all the windows of defendant’s
building. The court ruled in their favor but did not order the permanent
closing of window 5, !, A, , ;, *, : because only window & was not under
the ceiling, and window 3 in the balcony of the bac) part of defendant’s
building. @ence. This appeal. The lower court said that window 3 in the
balcony overloo)s $alle Eadre =ada and that though the $hocos’ lot can
be seen from this window, it is not contiguous to their property.
Issues)
(3# >hether or not window 3 should be closed.
(5# >hether or not windows 5, !, A, , ;, *, : should be permanently
closed.
?eld)
(1) <es. If it is in front of the $hocos’ lot, it is un%uestionable that it
directly overloo)s the same; but even though it did not only a side or
obli%ue view of the lot could be obtained from it, it could not be )ept open,
since between it and the $hocos’ property, there does not intervene the
distance re%uired by law. that of 5m in the 3
st
case, and ;" cm in the 5
nd
case. In reality, there is no distance at all between the said window and
the $hocos’ lot because as the 1upreme $ourt has said, the window is
perpendicular to the boundary line of the said lot; therefore, its opening is
a manifest violation of Art. *5 of the $ivil $ode (Article ;&", -ew $ivil
$ode# which states that'
6>indows with direct views, or balconies or any similar openings projecting
over the estate of the neighbor, cannot be made if there is not a distance
of at least 5m between the wall in which they are built and said estate.8
6-either can side nor obli%ue views be opened over said property unless
there is a distance of ;"cm.8
@ence, the defendant is ordered to close finally and forever window 3.
@7/ -o. They cannot be permanently closed because only window & is
not immediately under the ceiling (techos#. /y 6techo8 is understood that a
part of a construction which covers the rooms under it and certainly forms
11 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
one of the essential parts of every story. A story is composed of earth,
pavement and ceiling, the latter, that is, the ceiling, being part of the story
that is visible to the observer situated below in the room covered by it.
$onse%uently, every storey has a ceiling, and not, as the $hocos
maintain, the upper one alone. If windows 5, !, A, , ;, *, : comply with
re%uirements of the law under Article *3 (Article ;;:, -ew $ivil $ode#
they can be reopened.
Cid -" 6a-ier
-o. F.3A33;; Danuary 5", 3:;3
1acts)
EetitionerHs construction of a building allegedly being made in violation of
0unicipal Brdinance -o. !, series of 3:": of the municipality of Faoag,
and in disregard of respondentHs right to light and view. =espondentsH
house, as well as that of petitioner, are within their respective properties
that respondentsH wall stands only " centimeters from the boundary of the
5 lots, whereas, the wall of petitionerHs building was constructed 3 meter
from the boundary or 3 meter and " centimeters from the wall of the
house of respondents. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of
the two houses overlap each other by 5A centimeters. This, the $ourt of
Appeals declared to be violative of Brdinance -o. !, series of 3:":,
amending 1ections 3, , ;, and 3! of the 0unicipal Brdinance of Dune !,
3:"!, which re%uires a distance of 5 meters, measured from eaves to
eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials.
Issue)
>hether or not IIIIIIIIII
?eld) It must be noted, however, that the Brdinance in %uestion was
adopted since 3:": and was, therefore, already in force at the time the
house of respondents was reconstructed in 3:A; after the building
originally erected thereon was burned in 3:A5. If respondents constructed
their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner has
constructed hers, there would be no overlapping of the eaves and there
would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view
of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and
the conse%uential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed
to petitioner, as to re%uire her alone to ma)e the adjustments necessary
for the observance of the 5.meter eaves.to.eaves distance from her
neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be e(acted, the
adjustments should be made not only by petitioner, but also by the
respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the
injunction.
6Cranting that in the instant case an easement of light and view was
ac%uired by prescription, it was cut off or e(tinguished by the registration
of the servient estate under the Torrens 1ystem without the easement
being annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to 1ec.
!: of the Fand =egistration Act (Act A:;#.8
Soriano -s Stern*erg, o-em*er 95, 947:
1acts)
The plaintiff desires to obtain a judicial order, to compel the defendant to
close the windows in the wall of his house adjacent to the property of the
plaintiff, because the wall of defendant’s house is less than 5 meters from
the division line. The defendant pleads prescription and relies e(clusively
upon this defense. The lower court agreed with the plaintiff’s contention
and ordered the windows of the defendant’s house to be closed, with cost
against the defendant.
Issue)
>hether or not a right action to enforce Article ;&" of the $ivil $ode may
be lost by failure to prosecute within the prescriptive period fi(ed by the
$ode of $ivil Erocedure.
?eld)
It should be first noted that the defendant in this case has never prohibited
the plaintiff from building on his, the plaintiff’s, own land, any wall that he
may desire to construct. 4urther, it should be noted that the offending
edifice of the defendant was constructed in 3:". This was the year when
the defendant violated the law. This was the date when the cause of action
accrued. -evertheless, the windows complained of were permitted to be
open for thirteen years without protest. The plaintiff must conse%uently, by
12 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View
reason of his own laches, be considered to have waived any right which
he may have had to compel the windows to be closed.
1 Civil Code of the Philippines | Property – Easement of Light and View

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful