ASG Law

Tag: Easement of Light and View

  • Light and View Easements: The Critical Role of Prior Ownership and Apparent Signs

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the conditions for acquiring an easement of light and view, particularly when properties were previously under single ownership. The Court emphasized that an apparent sign of easement, such as existing windows, acts as a title to the easement, binding subsequent owners unless explicitly removed or altered in the property transfer. This decision protects homeowners’ access to light and view, preventing new constructions from unjustly blocking their established rights, and reinforces the importance of visible property features in determining legal easements.

    From Single Owner to Separate Estates: How Visible Signs Establish Easements

    The case of Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia v. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita Tan arose from a dispute between neighbors in Iloilo City. The Garcias, owners of a one-story house, filed a complaint against the Santoses, who began constructing a two-story building on an adjacent lot. The Garcias claimed that the new construction obstructed their right to light, air, and view, and violated easement regulations. The central legal question was whether the Garcias had acquired an easement of light and view over the Santoses’ property, preventing the construction of a building that would block their access to natural light.

    The heart of the legal matter lies in understanding easements, specifically those concerning light and view. According to Article 613 of the Civil Code, an easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. This essentially grants certain rights over one property (the servient estate) to benefit another (the dominant estate). Easements can be legal, imposed by law, or voluntary, established by agreement between parties. The easement of light and view allows the dominant estate to enjoy free access to light, air, and a view overlooking the servient estate.

    Easements are further classified as either positive or negative. A positive easement requires the owner of the servient estate to allow something to be done or to do it themselves, while a negative easement prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something they could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. The distinction is crucial because it affects how an easement is acquired. For positive easements, prescription begins when the dominant estate starts exercising the easement. For negative easements, prescription begins only after the owner of the dominant estate formally prohibits the servient estate owner from acting in a way that would violate the easement.

    The Supreme Court addressed whether an easement of light and view can be both positive and negative, clarifying the circumstances under which each classification applies. Generally, an easement of light and view is positive if the window or opening is situated in a party wall. Conversely, it is negative if the window or opening is through one’s own wall. In the Garcia case, the windows were on the Garcias’ own wall, which typically implies a negative easement. However, the Court emphasized an important exception under Article 624 of the Civil Code, which addresses situations where two estates were previously owned by a single owner.

    Article 624 of the Civil Code provides a crucial exception:

    The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed.

    This article essentially states that if there’s a visible sign of an easement (like a window) between two estates owned by the same person, and one of those estates is sold, the easement continues unless explicitly negated in the sale or the sign is removed. This provision is particularly relevant because it establishes a title to the easement even without a formal agreement or notarial prohibition.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 624 carves out an exception to the general rule that easements of light and view acquired through windows on one’s own wall are negative and require formal prohibition. The Court referenced key precedents, including Amor v. Florentino and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon. These cases illustrate that when a single owner establishes an apparent easement (like windows) and then divides the property, the easement is effectively created upon the transfer of ownership, binding the new owners of the formerly unified estate.

    Specifically, in Amor v. Florentino, the existence of windows in a house that once belonged to a single owner was deemed an apparent sign of an easement of light and view. The Court held that this apparent sign had the same effect as a title of acquisition, and the new owner of the adjacent property could not obstruct those windows. Similarly, in Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, the Court recognized that doors and windows overlooking a neighboring property constituted an easement of light and view, preventing the new owner from constructing buildings that would block the light and view.

    Building on these precedents, the Supreme Court found that the Garcias had indeed acquired an easement of light and view. The Court reasoned that because the Santoses previously owned both properties, and the Garcias’ house already had windows when they purchased it, an easement was created by title under Article 624. This meant the Santoses, as owners of the servient estate, could not construct their building in a way that obstructed the Garcias’ access to light and view.

    However, the Court also addressed the applicable distance rules. While Article 670 of the Civil Code generally requires a two-meter distance between a wall with direct view windows and the adjoining property, Article 673 provides an exception.

    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.

    Article 673 stipulates that when a right to direct views has been acquired by title, the servient estate must maintain a distance of three meters from the property line. The Court found that because the Santoses’ construction was only two meters from the boundary line, it violated Article 673. Consequently, the Court ordered the Santoses to demolish or renovate portions of their building to comply with the three-meter distance rule.

    FAQs

    What is an easement of light and view? It is a legal right that allows a property owner to enjoy access to light, air, and a view over an adjacent property. This right can restrict what the owner of the adjacent property can build or construct.
    How can an easement of light and view be acquired? It can be acquired through various means, including by title (such as a deed or legal presumption), prescription (long-term, uninterrupted use), or voluntary agreement between property owners. The specific requirements vary depending on the method of acquisition.
    What does Article 624 of the Civil Code say about easements? Article 624 states that if there’s an apparent sign of an easement between two properties owned by the same person, and one property is sold, the easement continues unless otherwise stated in the sale or the sign is removed before the sale.
    What is the difference between a positive and negative easement? A positive easement allows the owner of the dominant estate to do something on the servient estate (e.g., draw water). A negative easement prevents the owner of the servient estate from doing something they would otherwise be allowed to do (e.g., building a tall structure).
    What distance must be observed when building near a property with an easement of light and view? Generally, Article 670 of the Civil Code requires a two-meter distance. However, Article 673 mandates a three-meter distance when the right to direct views has been acquired by title or prescription.
    What did the Supreme Court decide in the Garcia v. Santos case? The Supreme Court ruled that the Garcias had acquired an easement of light and view over the Santoses’ property under Article 624 of the Civil Code. The Court ordered the Santoses to modify their building to comply with the three-meter distance rule.
    Why was the prior single ownership of the properties important in this case? Because the properties were once owned by the same person (the Santoses), the existing windows on the Garcias’ property created an apparent sign of an easement that continued when the property was sold to the Garcias, according to Article 624.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for property owners? This ruling reinforces that visible features of a property, like windows, can create legal easements that bind subsequent owners. It protects homeowners’ access to light and view and prevents neighbors from unjustly obstructing those rights.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Garcia v. Santos offers significant clarity on the acquisition of easements of light and view, particularly in situations involving prior single ownership. The ruling underscores the importance of Article 624 of the Civil Code and how visible signs, like windows, can establish enforceable easements. This case serves as a reminder for property owners to be aware of existing easements and how they may impact future construction or development plans.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. TEDY GARCIA AND PILAR GARCIA, PETITIONERS, V. LORETA T. SANTOS, WINSTON SANTOS AND CONCHITA TAN, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019

  • Demolition of Illegal Structures on Public Roads: Enforcing Public Welfare Over Private Interests

    This case clarifies that structures illegally built on public roads constitute a nuisance and must be removed, irrespective of claimed easements. The Supreme Court emphasized the primacy of public welfare, holding that the interests of a few cannot outweigh the community’s right to unobstructed passage. This ruling reinforces the authority of local governments to maintain public spaces for their intended use, ensuring that private interests do not infringe upon public rights and safety.

    When a Sari-Sari Store Blocks a Barrio Road: Can Private Claims Trump Public Use?

    The case of Teofilo Alolino v. Fortunato Flores and Anastacia Marie Flores revolves around a dispute over a structure built on a barrio road in Taguig. Alolino, the owner of adjacent land, sought the removal of the Flores spouses’ house/sari sari store, arguing that it obstructed his right to light and view and impeded access to the road. The Floreses countered that they had occupied the land for a long time and that Alolino’s house was built without proper setbacks. At the heart of the matter was whether the structure, admittedly built on a public road, could remain, and what rights, if any, Alolino had over the adjacent property.

    The Supreme Court first addressed the nature of the land in question. According to Article 424 of the Civil Code, properties for public use include:

    Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.

    Given this definition, the barrio road adjacent to Alolino’s property was deemed property of public dominion intended for public use. The court then examined the Floreses’ claim that the local government had reclassified the road as a residential lot. Citing Section 21 of the Local Government Code (LGC), the court clarified that such reclassification requires an ordinance approved by at least two-thirds of the Sanggunian members.

    Section 21. Closure and Opening of Roads. – A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction; Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian.

    In this case, the Sanggunian had only passed a resolution, which the Court distinguished from an ordinance, noting that an ordinance is a law, while a resolution is merely a declaration of sentiment. Since the LGU failed to comply with Section 21, the reclassification was deemed ineffective, and the road retained its status as property for public use.

    As a property dedicated to public use, the Court emphasized that the barrio road is outside the commerce of man, meaning it is not alienable or disposable, cannot be registered under Presidential Decree No. 1529, is not subject to prescription, and cannot be burdened by any voluntary easements. An easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable or a community. The court further distinguished between easements acquired by title or prescription.

    While Alolino claimed an easement of light and view, the Court found that he had not acquired such an easement because he never issued a formal prohibition against the Floreses before their construction. According to Article 668 of the Civil Code, the period of prescription for acquiring an easement of light and view begins from the time of formal prohibition. This requirement was not met.

    Even without a valid easement, the Court determined that the Floreses’ structure constituted a nuisance, as defined in Article 694 of the Civil Code:

    Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water.

    Because the Floreses’ house obstructed the free passage of a public road, it was deemed a nuisance per se. The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals’ invocation of Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act, clarifying that this provision itself allows for the demolition of illegal structures on public roads. The Supreme Court concluded that the interests of the public outweigh the private interests of the Floreses.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a structure illegally built on a public road could be ordered demolished, despite claims of prior occupancy and lack of formal easements. The Supreme Court had to determine if private interests could override the public’s right to unobstructed use of public spaces.
    What is a ‘barrio’ road? A ‘barrio’ road is a local road typically found in a smaller community or village. It is considered property for public use, intended to provide access and passage for the general public within that community.
    What is an easement, and why was it important here? An easement is a right that one property owner has to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Alolino claimed an easement of light and view, arguing the Floreses’ structure blocked sunlight and ventilation to his property; however, the court found no legally established easement.
    Why did the court consider the Floreses’ structure a nuisance? The court considered the Floreses’ structure a nuisance because it obstructed a public road. Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, any structure that interferes with the free passage of a public highway is deemed a nuisance.
    What is the difference between a resolution and an ordinance? An ordinance is a law passed by a local government, requiring a higher level of approval and adherence to procedural rules. A resolution, on the other hand, is merely a declaration of sentiment or opinion, and does not carry the same legal weight as an ordinance.
    What does it mean for property to be ‘outside the commerce of man’? Property ‘outside the commerce of man’ cannot be privately owned, sold, or subjected to contracts. Public roads and similar properties intended for public use fall under this category, ensuring they remain accessible and available for the public’s benefit.
    What is the significance of Section 21 of the Local Government Code? Section 21 of the Local Government Code outlines the process by which a local government can close or open local roads. It requires the enactment of an ordinance approved by a supermajority of the local council, ensuring that such decisions are made with due consideration and public input.
    How does this case affect property owners adjacent to public roads? This case reaffirms that property owners cannot build structures that obstruct public roads, even if they claim prior occupancy or lack of formal prohibition. It reinforces the principle that public welfare takes precedence over private interests when it comes to the use of public spaces.

    The Alolino v. Flores decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal processes when dealing with public lands. It underscores the principle that public welfare is paramount and that structures obstructing public spaces will be subject to demolition. This ruling ensures that public roads remain open and accessible for the benefit of the entire community.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Teofilo Alolino, PETITIONER, VS. Fortunato Flores and Anastacia Marie Flores, RESPONDENTS., G.R. No. 198774, April 04, 2016