Soriano vs.

Sternberg

Facts:
Oscar Sternberg owns a parcel of land with
a two storey-house which was built in 1905.
The said house has windows overlooking
the adjacent lot belonging to Soriano.
The windows were built on the wall of the
house which has a 1.36 m. distance from
the dividing line between the two lots.
Thereafter, Soriano filed an action to
compel Sternberg to close the windows
because it is less than 2 meters from the
division line between the two lots and
hence, a violation of Article 582 (now
Article 670) of the Civil Code.
The law provides that "No windows or
balconies or other similar projections which
directly overlook the adjoining property
may be opened or built without leaving a
distance of not less than 2 meters between
the wall in which they are built and such
adjoining property.
Sternberg argues that the action of Soriano
has already prescribed.
It must be noted that there is no annotation
in the Torrens title of the parties involved.
(No easement of view in the title of Soriano
and no right to easement on the title of
Sternberg.)
Here, there is no question of easement.

Issue: WON a right of action to enforce Article 582 of
the Civil code may be lost by failure to prosecute
within the prescriptive period fixed by the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Held: Yes.

In this case, Sternberg has never prohibited Soriano
from building any wall on his own land. Sorianos cause
of action only arose in 1905 when Sternberg built the
offending edifice (building).

Nevertheless, the windows complained of were
permitted to be open for thirteen years (1918) without
protest from Soriano. Soriano 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.

It is our holding that plaintiff right of action under
article 582 of the Civil Code accrued in 1905 when the
windows in defendant's house were opened, and that,
in accordance with Chapter III of the Code of Civil
Procedure, his action has prescribed.


In case iask:
The argument of Soriano that it was only in 1917, when
he bought the land in question, that the statute of
limitations began to run, is not convincing, for the
general rule is, that once the statute begins to run, it
never stops, and the transfer of the cause of action
does not have the effect of suspending its operation.

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.
The nonobservance of these distances does not
give rise to prescription.