G.R. No. 48384
October 11, 1943
74 PHIL 403-436
Doctrine:
Article 624 of the Civil Code applies to a division of the property by succession.
Facts:
Maria Florentino owned a lot where a house and a warehouse stood. The house has on its north side four windows. Maria executed a will devising the house and the lot where it stands to Gabriel and Jose Florentino (respondents). Also, Maria devised the warehouse and the lot where it stood to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. Upon the death of the testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done by the devisees in regard to the windows in question. Thereafter, Maria Encarnacion Florentino sold her lot and warehouse to Severo Amor (petitioner), the deed of sale stating that the vendor had inherited the property from her aunt.
Severo Amor destroyed the warehouse and constructed a two-story house. Respondents filed an action to prohibit petitioner herein from building higher than the original structure and from executing any work which would shut off the light and air that had for many years been received through the four windows referred to.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner acquired an easement of light and view through title pursuant to Article 624 of the Civil Code .
Held:
Yes. Article 541 (now Art. 624) applies to a division of property by succession. Article 624 provides that, “[t]he existence 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 estates is divided, the contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them, or the sign is made to disappear before the instrument is executed.”
In this case, the existence of the four windows constructed on the subject house was an apparent sign of an easement of light and view, the subsistence of which after the lots were segregated to different owners created an easement of light and vies by title without the need of any formal notice to the servient estate. The moment of the acquisition of the easement of light and view as well as the of easement not to build higher, was the time of the transfer of the other property adjacent to the lot where the windows were located (i.e. the death of original owner).
When the original owner, Maria Florentino, died in 1892, the ownership of the house and its lot passed to respondents, while the dominion over the camarin and its lot was vested in Maria Encarnacion Florentino, from whom said property was later bought by petitioner. At the time the devisees took possession of their respective portions of the inheritance, neither the respondents nor Maria Encarnacion Florentino said or did anything with respect to the four windows of the respondents’ house. The respondents did not renounce the use of the windows, either by stipulation or by actually closing them permanently. On the contrary, they exercised the right of receiving light and air through those windows. Neither did the petitioner’s predecessor in interest, Maria Encarnacion Florentino, object to them or demand that they be closed. The easement was therefore created from the time of the death of the original owner of both estates, so when petitioner bought the land and the camarin thereon from Maria Encarnacion Florentino, the burden of this easement continued on the real property so acquired.
Morever, this case is different from the case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo. First, the case of Yu-Tibo involved acquisition of an easement by prescription whereas this case involved acquisition of easement by title under Article 624. Second, formal prohibition was necessary in order to start the period of prescription in the Yu-Tibo case; whereas no such act is necessary here because the existence of the apparent sign when Maria Florentino died was sufficient title in itself to create the easement. Third, while in the Yu-Tibo case, there were two different owners of two separate houses from the beginning, in the present case there was only one original owner of the two structures. Finally, the Yu-Tibo case was decided upon the theory of the negative easement of altius non tollendi, while the instant case is predicated on the idea of the positive easement of light and view under article 624.