Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a) Easements
Cid v. Javier, 108 Phil 239; G.R. No. L-14116. June 30,
1960.
Notarial prohibition is required to start the running of
prescription. Also Registration of the Immovable without the
registration of the easement extinguishes the easement.
FACTS: The easement in dispute here is an easement of light
and view, which is a negative easement. The respondents
Javier, et al are the owners of the building standing on their
lot with windows overlooking the adjacent lot. Respondents
have claimed that they had acquired by prescription an
enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal
prohibition to obstruct such view and light. The lower courts
have ruled in their favor.
Note: easement of light and view is continuous and apparent
so it is subject to prescription.
ISSUES: Whether or not the respondents Irene P. Javier, et al.,
owners of a building standing on their lot with windows
overlooking the adjacent lot, had acquired by prescription an
enforceable easement of light and view arising from a verbal
prohibition to obstruct such view and light, alleged to have
been made upon petitioners predecessor-in-interest as owner
of the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by
Torrens titles.
RULING: NO. Art538s requirement is a formal act and not
just any verbal or written act. Formal act contemplated in
art538 in the OLD Civil Code pertains to an instrument
acknowledged before a notary public. Prescription for a
negative easement only begins when there is a notarial
prohibition by the dominant estate. Respondents could have
not acquired the easement by prescription because they have
not fulfilled this requirement. Even assuming they have
acquired it, the easement no longer exists because the
properties were registered under the Torrens system without
any annotation or registration of the said easement.
The CA, and the CFI, took the view that the Hidalgo
Enterprises maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks), and
neglected to adopt the necessary precautions to avoid
accidents to persons entering its premises. It applied the
doctrine of attractive nuisance.
The CA required Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. to pay Guillermo
Balandan and his wife, damages in the sum of P2,000 for the
death of their son Mario.
ISSUE(S): Is a swimming pool or water tank an instrumentality
or appliance likely to attract the little children in play? In other
words, is the body of water an attractive nuisance?
RULING: NO. The appealed decision is reversed and the
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is absolved from liability.
RATIO: Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which
attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger
of drowning. Against this danger children are early instructed
so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger;
and if the owner of private property creates an artificial pool
on his own property, merely duplicating the work of nature
without adding any new danger... He is not liable because of
having created an "attractive nuisance."
The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to
bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of
some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the
mere water and its location.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive nuisance
doctrine has not been held not to be applicable to ponds or
reservoirs, pools of water, streams, canals, dams, ditches,
culverts, drains, cesspools or sewer pools.
In fairness to the Court of Appeals it should be stated that the
above volume of Corpus Juris Secundum was published in
1950, whereas its decision was promulgated on September
30, 1949.
Therefore, as Hidalgo's tanks are not classified as attractive
nuisance, the question whether the petitioner had taken
reasonable precautions becomes immaterial.
FACTS: Velasco bought three (3) adjoining lots. He sold two (2)
of these to Meralco and maintained the last one as his
residence. Meralco constructed on their lots a sub-station at a
distance of 10-20 meters away from appellants house. The
company also built a concrete wall at the sides along the
streets but put up only an interlink wire fence (previously a
sawali wall) on the boundary with appellant. An unceasing
sound emanates from the substation, caused by transformers.
Such, appellent contends, constitute a nuisance which has
worsened his health condition and has lowered the value of
his property. Several witnesses came forth but their
testimonies were vague and imprecise. Resort was made to a
sound level meter. The audible sound from different areas in
Velasos property was measured in terms of decibels. It was
found that the sound exceeded the average intensity levels of
residences.
ISSUE:Can there be a nuisance caused by noise or sound?
HELD: Yes. Several American decisions are cited showing that
noise is an actionable nuisance. In fact, Kentucky v. Anderson
dealt with noise emanating from electrical machinery and
appliances. The determining factor, however, is not just
intensity or volume. It must be of such character as to
produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a
person of ordinary sensibilities. However, appellants
testimony is too plainly biased. Nor are the witnesses
testimonies revealing on account of different perceptions.
Consequently, sound level meters were used. As stated
above, the sound exceeds average residential decibels. Also,
the testimonies of appellants physicians (which were more
reliable since they actually treated him, unlike the appellees)
point to the noise as having caused appellant loss of sleep,
irritation and tension weakening his constitution. Notable
lastly is the fact that in the Kentucky case, where the nuisance
was ordered abated, the average reading was 44 decibels
while in the instant, the readings include 52, 54, and 55. The
decision goes on to discuss the proper award of damages. But
Meralco was ordered either to transfer the facilities or reduce
the produced sound to around.
the alleged nuisance was not really so but the trial court found
that it was in fact a nuisance. Indeed it may be said that the
abatement thereof was not summary, but through a judicial
proceeding. The denial of petitioners petition for injunction
was in effect an authority for the police to carry out the act
which was sought to be enjoined.
Sur. At the time of the filing of the instant case, the cadastral
proceedings intended to settle the ownership over the
questioned portion of the parcel of land under Proclamation
No. 365 were still pending. One of the claimants in the
cadastral proceedings is private respondent Vicente Medina
who traced his ownership over the subject parcel of land as
far back as 1947 when he allegedly bought the same from a
Subanan native.
Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 97 Phil 131; G.R. No. L7248. May 28, 1955.
tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should
be used, even if it will not be the shortest.
As between a right of way that would demolish a store of
strong materials to provide egress to a public highway, and
another right of way which although longer will only require
an avocado tree to be cut down, the second alternative should
be preferred.