DOMINGO LAO and ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS, applicants-appellants,

vs.
THE HEIRS OF LORENZA ALBURO, objectors-appellees.
G.R. No. L-10372 December 24, 1915
Torres, J p:

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Easements – Party Wall

Case Summary: Sps. Lao filed for registration of several parcels of land. One land had a stone wall adjoining
the property of the heirs. Heirs alleged that this wall was a party wall, belonging to their predecessor-in-interest.
SC said no, exterior proof suggesting exclusive ownership by the Lao’s were sufficiently established.

Petitioners: Domingo Lao and Albina Santos

Respondents: Heirs of Lorenza Alburo

Doctrines Involved: The easement of a party wall is presumed. However, this presumption may be overturned
by proof of exterior signs or other proof such as those enumerated in NCC 660.

FACTS:
1. May 8, 1914 – Sps. Lao (Petitioners) filed an application before the Court of Land registration for the
registration of (4) parcels of land + improvements. Claiming to be absolute owners with the lots being
appraised as follows:
a. Lots in Calle Juan Luna, Binondo
i. Lot 1 –175 sq.m – house + 3 buildings 1 - land at P4,664 – buildings at P4,000
1. Acquired from one Felix Zaldivea via public instrument on June 11, 1912
ii. Lot 2 - 212.05 sq.m – house – land at P5492, buildings at P3600
1. Acquired from Sps. Lichauco via public instrument on Sept 12, 1912
b. Lots in Calle Elcano, San Nicolas Binondo
i. Lot 3 – 596 sq.m – land at P6329, buildings at P4000
1. Acquired from one Antonio Brimo via public instrument on March 28, 1911
ii. Lot 4 – 813 sq.m – two buildings – land at P8529, buildings at P4000
1. Acquired from one Marcela Lao via public instrument on April 7, 1914
2. The administrator of the estate of the deceased, Lorenza Alburo filed a written objection to the
registration. Alleged that the plan for Lot #2 included a stone wall along the northeast portion. That
the stone wall had belonged to Lorenza Alburo since March 8, 1881. That the building on which the
wall rested was the property of Lorenza for more than (35) years and that heirs of Alburo were not in
quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession of the wall.
3. Court of Land Registration – ruled that Sps. Lao were the lawful owners and possessors of the
properties sought to be registered. However, ordered that record be made in the decree that the stone
wall in Lot 2 was a party wall.
4. Led to current appeal.

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

• Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: That the stone wall is not a party, wall instead forming part
of their property.

1
Buildings were known as accesorias
ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the stone wall is a party wall? – NO
a. OCC 572 i – provides that the easement of a party wall is presumed. Unless, there is a title or
exterior mark or other proof in the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common
point of elevation.
i. OCC 573 – Provides instances where there are exterior signs which conflict with the
easement of party wall. ii
b. Stone Wall – records of the case show that:
i. (a) enclosing wall of the Lao’s buildings were much higher than the adjoining building
of the heirs;
ii. (b) That along the top of the wall there is a gutter which catches rainwater from the
Lao’s building and carries it to Calle Luna via an iron pipe fastened to it;
iii. (c) that ½ of the top of the stone wall is covered by the roof of the Lao’s building;
iv. (d) that the supports of the stone wall project towards the side of the Lao’s land and
that none of the buttresses are on the heir’s side of the lot;
v. (e) that the stones of the wall are bound or inset in the rear enclosing wall of the Lao’s
property in such a way that the two walls (Stone wall + Lao wall inclose their lot)
vi. (f) That exterior signs show that the stone wall is not a party wall, but that it forms a
part of the applicant’s building.
vii. (g) That on the heir’s land, behind the stone wall there is another and lower wall that
does not connect to it.
viii. Testimony of Cayetao Arguelles, a master builder that the drain mentioned in (b)
caught rain water from the eaves of the Laos roof. That there is a space between he
Lao’s wall and the other wall mentioned in (g). It was the other wall that was part of
an old building that belonged to the deceased, not the stone wall in question.
c. Taken together, these exterior signs prove that there is no party-wall easement. This cannot
be offset by the fact that the stone wall projects 74 cm into the Lao’s building or that the face
of the stone wall is on the same street line as the heir’s building. The projection of the wall
does not prove that it was a party wall co-owned by the parties.
d. Finally, heirs failed to prove that ½ of the stone wall as erected on land that belonged to
Lorenza Alburo. Mere fact that they may have inserted some of the timbers/joists/supports
of their buildings does not convert the wall into a party wall in light of the exterior signs
indicating exclusive ownership of the Laos.

RULING:

All of the applicants' properties, including the wall in question, should therefore be registered.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, but the decree of registration of the property
designated as Lot No. 2 shall include the disputed wall as belonging exclusively to the applicants, and that part
of said wall is a party wall is hereby reversed; without special finding as to costs.

So ordered.

DISSENT:

NOTES:

iArticle 659. The existence of an easement of party wall is presumed, unless there is a title, or exterior sign, or proof to
the contrary:
 (1) In dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the point of common elevation;

(2) In dividing walls of gardens or yards situated in cities, towns, or in rural communities;

(3) In fences, walls and live hedges dividing rural lands. (572)

ii Article 660. It is understood that there is an exterior sign, contrary to the easement of party wall:

(1) Whenever in the dividing wall of buildings there is a window or opening;

(2) Whenever the dividing wall is, on one side, straight and plumb on all its facement, and on the other, it has
similar conditions on the upper part, but the lower part slants or projects outward;

(3) Whenever the entire wall is built within the boundaries of one of the estates;

(4) Whenever the dividing wall bears the burden of the binding beams, floors and roof frame of one of the
buildings, but not those of the others;

(5) Whenever the dividing wall between courtyards, gardens, and tenements is constructed in such a way that
the coping sheds the water upon only one of the estates;

(6) Whenever the dividing wall, being built of masonry, has stepping stones, which at certain intervals project
from the surface on one side only, but not on the other;

(7) Whenever lands inclosed by fences or live hedges adjoin others which are not inclosed.

In all these cases, the ownership of the walls, fences or hedges shall be deemed to belong exclusively to the
owner of the property or tenement which has in its favor the presumption based on any one of these signs.
(573)