Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This section deals with two kinds of easements: Prohibition to make an opening thru the party wall
Question: P r o p e r t y B
Suppose in the illustration zz, A makes the opening without B’s consent,
what will B’s 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 i n d o wP a r t y W a l l
(read Art. 668, par. 1)
O p e n e d W i n d o w
P r o p e r t y A P r o p e r t y B
Note:
Illustration hh
When the easement of Light and View is Positive and Negative:
P a r t y W a l l
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 of
e t the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of
the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on
the dominant estate. (n)
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)
P a r ty W a ll P a r ty W a ll 6 c m
2 M e t e r s D i s t a n c e
O p e n e d W in d o w
O p e n e d W i n d o w
P ro p e r ty A
P r o p e r t y 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 i o n u u
I l l u s t r a t io n o o
b. Regular windows can be opened provided that the proper
distances are followed.
Proper distances:
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)
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
I l l u s t r a t i o n m m R i v 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 Yes. The Court held that Article 624 of the Civil code provides that the
existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
“The Supreme court held that, if an estate has easement of light and view established by the proprietor of both, shall be considered, if one of them is
under Article 624, the neighbor cannot construct on his lot unless he alienated, as a title so that the easement will continue actively and
observes the 3-meter rule.” 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
In this section are Digested cases pertaining to Easement of Light made to disappear before the instrument is executed. The existence of the
and View: doors and windows in the northeastern side is equivalent to a title for the
visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that characterizes its
Gargantos v. Yanon existence. While the law declares that the easement is to “continue” the
108 Phil. 889 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 Facts:
portion, which, together with the camarin and small building thereon, after The house No.65 Calle Rosario, property of the wife of the plaintiff, has
passing through several hands, was finally acquired by petitioner Juan certain windows therein, through which it receives light and air, said
Gargantos. Gargantos applied to the Municipal Mayor for a permit to windows opening on the adjacent house, No. 63 of the same street; that
demolish the old camarin, the latter granted it to him. He applied for these windows have been in existence since the year 1843, and that the
another permit to construct a combined residential house and warehouse defendant, the tenant of the said house No. 63, has commenced certain
on his lot. Respondent Yanon opposed the approval of his application. work with the view to raising the roof of the house in such a manner that
Because the provincial fiscal and district engineer recommended the one-half of one of the windows in said house No. 65 has been covered,
granting of the building permit, respondent filed an action to restrain thus depriving the building of a large part of the air and light formerly
petitioner from constructing a building that would prevent the respondent received through the window. The court practically finds the preceding
from receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of his facts, and further finds that the plaintiff has not proven that he has, by any
house. However, the CFI of Romblon dismissed the complaint. On appeal, formal act, prohibited the owner of house No. 63 from making
the CA enjoined defendant from constructing his building unless “he erects improvements of any kind therein at any time prior to the complaint.
the same at a distance of not less than three meters from the boundary
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
of the windows during a period of fifty-nine years he acquired by
Issue: prescription an easement of light in favor of the house No.65, and as a
Whether or not the property of respondent Tan Yanon has an easement of servitude upon house No.63, and, consequently, has acquired the right to
light and view against the property of petitioner Gargantos. restrain the making of any improvements in the latter house which might in
any manner be prejudicial to the enjoyment of the easement. He contends
Held: that the easement of light is positive; and that therefore the period of
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 defendant’s 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 1st 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
adjustment has been suggested, the two parties failed to reach a the Chocos’ lot because as the Supreme Court has said, the window is
compromise, hence, no adjustment was made on the windows. perpendicular to the boundary line of the said lot; therefore, its opening is
Apparently, the windows of the defendant’s building miserably failed the a manifest violation of Art. 582 of the Civil Code (Article 670, New Civil
requisites provided by law: either the windows under the ceiling did not Code) which states that:
comply with 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 “Windows with direct views, or balconies or any similar openings projecting
wire screen. The rear wall windows were 50 x 80 cm. The right wall over the estate of the neighbor, cannot be made if there is not a distance
windows were 25 x 35 cm in the 2 nd storey , and 25 x 25 cm in the 1 st of at least 2m between the wall in which they are built and said estate.”
storey. The other windows were 35 x 67 cm, and 75 x 90, all of which “Neither can side nor oblique views be opened over said property unless
covered by wire screening only. The law provides in Article 581 of the Civil there is a distance of 60cm.”
Code (article 669, New Civil Code), “the owner of a wall which is not a
party wall, adjoining another’s estate, amy make in it windows or openings Hence, the defendant is ordered to close finally and forever window 1.
to admit 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.” (2) No. They cannot be permanently closed because only window 7 is
In the instant case, the windows are in a wall not a party wall adjoining the not immediately under the ceiling (techos). By “techo” is understood that a
Choco estate and the windows are more or less than 30cm2 and have a part of a construction which covers the rooms under it and certainly forms
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 plaintiff’s, 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
would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view accrued. Nevertheless, the windows complained of were permitted to be
of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and open for thirteen years without protest. The plaintiff must consequently, by
the consequential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed