Easement, defined

It is and encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit

of a community or one or more persons or for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner.
It is a real right, constituted on anothers property, corporeal and
immovable whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or
allowing somebody else to do something on his property, for the benefit of
another person or tenement.

1. Easement of Light small windows, not more than 30 cm.

square, at the height of the ceiling joist, the purpose of which is to
admit light, and little air, but not View.
2. Easement of View full or regular windows overlooking the
adjoining estate.
Art. 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others, open
through the party wall any window or aperture of any kind. (580)

Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an

immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different
owner.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the
dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate. (530)
P ro p e rty A

P ro p e rty B

Modes of Acquiring Easements

Art. 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by
virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. (537a)
Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in
the preceding article, the time of possession shall be computed thus: in
positive easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant
estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement,
commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate; and in negative
easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate
forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner
of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without
the easement. (538a)

P a r ty W a ll

S tre e t

Illustration zz

SECTION 5. - Easement of Light and View

Note:

This section deals with two kinds of easements:

Prohibition to make an opening thru the party wall

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

Example:
A and B are co-owners of a party wall. (see illustration zz) A cannot make
an opening on the wall without the permission of B. If A were allowed to do
this (without the Bs consent), there is a distinct possibility that A will later
claim the whole wall as his in view of the exterior sign. Moreover, it is as if
A were allowed to use the whole thickness of the wall.

R iv e r

Question:
Suppose in the illustration zz, A makes the opening without Bs consent,
what will Bs 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.
(read Art. 668, par. 1)

P ro p e rty B

Illustration ll

Art. 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of

light and view shall be counted:

O p e n e d W in d o w

P a r ty W a ll

P ro p e rty A

(1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a

party wall; or
O p e n e d W in d o w

P ro p e rty A

P ro p e rty B

Illustration hh

Note:
When the easement of Light and View is Positive and Negative:

P a r ty W a ll

(2) From the Stime

t r e e t of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of
the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on
the dominant estate. (n)
2

Positive easement
If the window is thru a party wall. Therefore the period of prescription
commences from the time the window is opened.

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

Note: The mere opening of the window doesnt create the easement it is
only when after a sufficient lapse of time the window still remains open, the
easement of light and view is created.
On the case of Fabie v. Lichauco, G.R. No. L-3598, July 24, 1908
The Supreme court held that, Even if the window is on ones own wall, still
the easement would be positive if the window is on a balcony or projection
extending over into the adjoining land.
Negative easement:
If the window is thru ones own wall, that is, thru a wall of the dominant
state.
On the case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, GR No. 911, March 12, 1903
The Supreme court held that, the time for the period of prescription
should begin from the time of notarial prohibition upon the adjoining owner.
Problems:
Question no. 1:
A and B own a party wall. A, without Bs consent, made an opening in the
party wall on December 9, 1956. In 1957, may B still close the opening?
Answer:
Yes, for no easement has yet been acquired by A. (read Art. 668, par. 1)
Question no 2:
In question no. 1, can B close the window on December 10, 1966?
Answer:
No, for more than 10 years have elapse; and A has already acquired the
easement (read Art. 668, par. 1; Art. 620)
Question no. 3:
A and B are adjoining owners. In 1956, A made an opening in his own wall.
In 1961, A makes a formal notarial demand on B, prohibiting him to
obstruct the view, In 1967, may B still set up an obstruction?
3

Answer:
Yes, because although more than 10 years had elapsed since the opening
of the window, still less than 10 years have elapsed since the notarial
prohibition. Remember that what A is trying to obtain is a negative
easement.
Art. 669. When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the owner of
a wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land
belonging to another, can make in it openings to admit light at the height of
the ceiling joints or immediately under the ceiling, and of the size of thirty
centimeters square, and, in every case, with an iron grating imbedded in
the wall and with a wire screen.
Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in
which the openings are made can close them should he acquire partownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the contrary.
He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by
raising a wall thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an
easement of light has been acquired. (581a)
Note:
In this Article, the openings or windows referred to in this article are for
light, not view, hence the conditions or restrictions set for them.
Restrictions referred to by Article 669:
1. Maximize size e.g. 30 cm. square, (not more than 30 cm.
length or width)
2. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
3. There must be wire screen
4. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists (beam) or
immediately under the ceiling.

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

Question:
A has made restricted windows on his own wall for light. What can the
adjoining or abutting owner do?
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)
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.

(582a)

Art. 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be

P ro p e rty B
measured in cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall when the
openings do not project, from the outer line of the latter when they do, and
in cases of oblique view from the dividing line between the two properties.
(583)

P a r ty W a ll

P ro p e rty B

P a rty W a ll

2 M e te r s D is ta n c e

6 cm

O p e n e d W in d o w

O p e n e d W in d o w

P ro p e r ty A

P ro p e rty A

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

T
T

Illu s t r a t io n o o

Illu s t r a t io n u u

b. Regular windows can be opened provided that the proper

distances are followed.
Proper distances:
a. Windows having direct views, observe at least 2 meters distance
between the wall having the windows and the boundary line.
b. Windows having side or oblique views, observe a distance of at
least 60 cms. Between the boundary line and nearest edge of the
window.
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)
Note: The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to
prescription. It means that the mere non-observance of these distances
doesnt give rise to prescription because this being a negative easement,
a notarial prohibition is still required before the period of prescription will
commence to run.

Note:
Rules for Regular Windows:
a. Articles 670 and 671 deal with regular, full windows
(distinguished from the restricted windows referred to in Art.
669)
5

Art. 672. The provisions of Article 670 are not applicable to buildings
separated by a public way or alley, which is not less than three meters
wide, subject to special regulations and local ordinances. (584a)

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

Alley

Building B

Building A

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
Refers to agreement, will, donation, or prescription.
Examples:A and B are adjoining owners, By virtue of a contract, B agreed
to give A an easement of view over his land. In the absence of any
stipulation about distance, B (servient owner) cannot construct a building
on his own land at less than a distance of three meters from the boundary
line. However, the distance may be increased or decreased provided that
the minimum distances prescribed in Article 670 are observed. The same
may be said of an easement of view acquired by prescription.

B a lc o n y

P ro p e rty A

P r o p e rty B

D is t a n c e to b e m e a s u r e d

Illu s tr a t io n m m

R iv e r

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

On the case of Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, 108 Phil. 889

The Supreme court held that, if an estate has easement of light and view
under Article 624, the neighbor cannot construct on his lot unless he
observes the 3-meter rule.
In this section are Digested cases pertaining to Easement of Light
and View:
Gargantos v. Yanon
108 Phil. 889
Facts:
The record discloses that late Francisco Sanz subdivided his lot into three
and then sold each to different persons. One was purchased by Guillermo
Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vecente Veza. Another portion with a
house of strong materials was sold to respondent Tan Yanon. This house
has on its northeastern side, doors and windows over-looking the third
portion, which, together with the camarin and small building thereon, after
passing through several hands, was finally acquired by petitioner Juan
Gargantos. Gargantos applied to the Municipal Mayor for a permit to
demolish the old camarin, the latter granted it to him. He applied for
another permit to construct a combined residential house and warehouse
on his lot. Respondent Yanon opposed the approval of his application.
Because the provincial fiscal and district engineer recommended the
granting of the building permit, respondent filed an action to restrain
petitioner from constructing a building that would prevent the respondent
from receiving light and enjoying the view through the window of his
house. However, the CFI of Romblon dismissed the complaint. On appeal,
the CA enjoined defendant from constructing his building unless he erects
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.
Issue:
Whether or not the property of respondent Tan Yanon has an easement of
light and view against the property of petitioner Gargantos.
Held:
7

Yes. The Court held that Article 624 of the Civil code provides that the
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 estate is divided,
contrary is stated in the deed of alienation of either of them or the sign is
made to disappear before the instrument is executed. The existence of the
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
existence. While the law declares that the easement is to continue the
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,
there being but one owner of both estates.
Cortes v. Yu-Tibo
GR No. 911, March 12, 1903
Facts:
The house No.65 Calle Rosario, property of the wife of the plaintiff, has
certain windows therein, through which it receives light and air, said
windows opening on the adjacent house, No. 63 of the same street; that
these windows have been in existence since the year 1843, and that the
defendant, the tenant of the said house No. 63, has commenced certain
work with the view to raising the roof of the house in such a manner that
one-half of one of the windows in said house No. 65 has been covered,
thus depriving the building of a large part of the air and light formerly
received through the window. The court practically finds the preceding
facts, and further finds that the plaintiff has not proven that he has, by any
formal act, prohibited the owner of house No. 63 from making
improvements of any kind therein at any time prior to the complaint.
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
prescription an easement of light in favor of the house No.65, and as a
servitude upon house No.63, and, consequently, has acquired the right to
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
that the easement of light is positive; and that therefore the period of

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

possession for the purposes of the acquisition of a prescriptive title is to

begin from the date on which the enjoyment of the same commenced, or,
in other words, applying the doctrine to this case, from the time that said
windows were opened with the knowledge of the owner of the house
No.63, and without opposition on his part. However, the defendant
contends that the easement is negative, and that therefore the time for the
prescriptive acquisition thereof must begin from the date on which the
owner of the dominant estate may have prohibited, by a formal act, the
owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful
but for the existence of the easement.
The court ruled that the easement of light is negative.
Issue:
Whether or not the easement of light in the case of windows opened in
ones own wall is negative.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court said that the case involves windows opened in a
wall belonging to the wife of the plaintiff and it is of their opinion that the
windows opened in ones own wall is of negative character, and, as such,
can not be acquired by prescription under Art.621 of the Civil Code, except
by counting the time of possession from the date on which the owner of
the dominant estate may, by a formal act, have prohibited the owner of the
servient estate from doing something which it would be lawful for him to do
were it not for the easement. That, in consequence thereof, the plaintiff,
not having executed any formal act of opposition to the right of the owner
of house No.63 Calle Rosario (of which the defendant is tenant), to make
therein improvements which might obstruct the light of house No.65 of the
same street, the property of the wife of the appellant, at any time prior to
the complaint, as found by the court below in the judgment assigned as
error, he has not acquired, nor could he acquire by prescription, such
easement of light, no matter how long a time might have elapsed since the
windows were opened in the wall of the said house no.65, because the
period which the law demands for such prescriptive acquisition could not
have commenced to run, the act with which it must necessarily commence
not having been performed.
8

When a person open windows in his own building he does nothing more
than exercise an act of ownership inherent in the right of property with no
limitations other than those established by law. By reason of the fact that
such an act is performed wholly on a thing which is wholly the property of
the one opening the window, it does not in itself establish any easement,
because the property is used by its owner in the exercise of dominion, and
not as the exercise of an easement. It is that the use if the windows
opened in a wall on ones own property, in the absence of some covenant
or express agreement to the contrary, is regarded as an act of mere
tolerance on the part of the owner of the abutting property and does not
create any right to maintain the windows to the prejudice of the latter. The
mere toleration of such an act does not imply on the part of the abutting
owner a waiver of his right to freely build upon his land as high as he may
see fit, nor does it avail the owner of the windows for the effects of
possession according to Art.1942 of the Civil Code, because it is a mere
possession at will. From all this it follows that the easement of light with
respect to the openings made in ones own edifice does not consist
precisely in the fact of opening them or using them. The easement really
consists in prohibiting or restraining the adjacent owner from doing
anything which may tend to cut off or interrupt the light; in short, it is limited
to the obligation of not impeding the light.
Fabie v. Lichauco
G.R. No. L-3598, July 24, 1908
Facts:
Petitioner Miguel Fabie applied for the registration of his property in Manila
free from any encumbrances except the easement of right of way in favor
of respondents Julita Lichauco and Hijos de Roxas. In addition to the said
right of way, respondents also claim that of light and view and drainage.
However, the claim was later reduce only to that of the light and view.
Lichauco cliamed that when Juan Bautista Coloma, the original owner of
both estates, established not only an easement of right of way but also
that of light and view and that when both the properties were alienated, the
apparent signs were not removed. The apparent sign allegedly consists of
a gallery with windows through which light is admitted. It was supported on
columns erected on the ground belonging to the petitioner and the balcony
on Lichaucos property is supported by uprights erected on the land by

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

petitioner. The parties admitted the existence of such gallery. The house
was now a frontage of 18 meters and 60 centimeters, of which 16 meters
and 60 centimeters correspond to the main part of the same, and 1 meter
and 90 centimeters to the gallery in question. It results, therefore, that at
the present day, the house has nearly 2 meters more frontage than when it
was alienated by Coloma. Therefore, at the present day the house is
erected partly on the land belonging to the owner and partly, the gallery,
over a lot belonging to another; that is, over that of the petitioner. When it
was sold in October, 1848, no portion of the house occupied the lot last
mentioned, but the entire building was erected over a lot belonging to the
owner as set forth in the instrument of sale.
The lower court held that the right of way and drainage exist in favor of the
respondents respective properties. The claim as to the easement of light
and view was dismissed by the court.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondents are entitled to the easement of light and
view.
Held:
No. The burden is not on the petitioner to prove on what time the gallery in
controversy was constructed inasmuch as he limits himself to sustaining
and defending the freedom of his property, denying the easement o flight
and view of the respondent pretends to impose over it. A property is
assumed to be from all encumbrance unless the contrary is proved.
Respondent who claims the said easement is obliged to prove the
aforementioned gallery, in which the apparent sign of the easement is
made to consist in the present case, existed at the time of ownership of
her property and that of the petitioner were separated. And inasmuch as
this issue has not been proved, the claim of the respondents as to the
easements of the light and view which the petitioner does not admit, must
of necessity be dismissed.
Therefore, it does not appear from the agreement of the parties that the
respondents has balconies over the land of the petitioner; and as it is,
since it has been positively shown that the said balconies exceed the limit
of the lot owned by the former, nor less that they invade the atmospheric
9

area of the lot belonging to the latter, it follows that, even in accordance
with the theory maintained by the respondents with which on account of its
lack of basis, we consider it unnecessary to deal herein as to its other
aspect, the easement of view, which might result in such case from the
existence of the balconies alluded to, would be negative and not a positive
one, because the erection of the same would not constitute, according to
their own statement, an invasion of the right of another, but the lawful
exercise of the right inherent to the dominion of the respondents to
construct within their own lot. And as said easement is negative, it cannot
have prescribed in favor of the property of the respondents in the absence
of any act of opposition, according to the agreement, by which they or their
principals would have prohibited the petitioner or his principals to do any
work which obstruct the balconies in question, inasmuch as said act of
opposition is what constitutes the necessary and indispensable point of
departure for computing the time required by law for the prescription of
negative easements. Thus, the judgment appealed from was affirmed in
toto by the Court.
Purugganan v. Paredes
69 SCRA 69
Facts:
Plaintiff-appellee Emilio Purugganan is the owner of a piece of lot
subdivided as Lot 1 and Lot 2, situated at Abra, adjacent to and bounded
on the North by the lot of defendant-appellant Felisa Paredes. The lots of
the plaintiff-appellee are subject to an easement of drainage in favor of the
defendants-appellants fully quoted in the Decree of Registration.
In or about March 1951, the defendants-appellants constructed a house on
their lot adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 of plaintiff-appellee in a manner that the
southern side of their house is exactly on the brick wall, the southern side
of which is the demarcation line between the plaintiff-appellee and the
defendants-appellants, demolishing said brick wall and built thereon the
southern wall of their house with 3 windows. The house constructed by the
defendants-appellants is 2-1/2 meters longer than the length of roofing
allowed in the Decree of Registration, and has an outer roofing if 1.20
meters, protruding over the property of the plaintiff-appellee which is .20
meters wider than that allowed in the same Decree of Registration, and

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

the rain water from GI roofing falls about 3 meters inside Lots 1 and 2 of
the plaintiff-appellee. The defendants-appellants also placed 3 windows
each on the first and second floors of their house on the side facing lots 1
and 2 of plaintiff-appellee. From the time the defendants-appellants started
to construct their house, the plaintiff-appellee has repeatedly and
continuously been demanding from the defendants-appellants that the
construction of their house be in accordance with the easement, but the
defendants-appellants refused to observe the easement and to close their
windows. They also prohibited the plaintiff-appellee from constructing a
party wall between points 1 and 2 of Lot 1 and between points 2 and 3 and
4 of Lot 1.
Defendants-appellants alleged that the plaintiff-appellee was the private
surveyor who surveyed their lot in 1925 and that in the course his survey
he had acted in bad faith when he excluded the portion of their land, which
was the subject, matter of their opposition to the registration of plaintiffappellees lots; that they constructed their house in 1950 without any
protest from the plaintiff-appellee and was almost complete when the
Decree of Registration was issued by the court; that the plaintiff-appellee
knew fully well that the defendants-appellants were merely reconstructing
a house which had been existing prior to the bombing of Bangued in 1945;
and that the brick wall standing along the house is exclusively owned by
them.
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants; ordering the defendants to reconstruct the roof and eaves of
their house on the southern side now existing on their lot such that the
falling water shall not fall on curve into the lots of the plaintiff beyond one
meter from the boundary line and by 8-1/2 meters in length and to remove
the said protruding eaves and roof.
Issue:
Whether or not the failure to have easement annotated on title
extinguishes the easement of light and view.
Held:
Defendants-appellants also blamed the trial court for ruling that they have
not acquired an easement of light and view of the property of the plaintiff10

appellee. The trial courts ruling that defendants-appellants have not

acquired and easement of light and view on the property is based on
Sec.39 of the Land Registration Act, which states that if there are
easement or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of registered land which
for any reason have failed to be registered, such easement or rights shall
remain so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure, and shall be held to
pass with the land until cut off or extinguished by the registration of the
servient estate or in any other manner. An easement is cut off or
extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens
System without the easement being annotated on the corresponding
certificate of title, pursuant to Sec. 39 of the Land Registartion Act (Act
496).

Masongsong v. Flores
57 Phil. 243
Facts:
Petitioner Alejandro Masongsong is the owner of a registered land in
Manila while Respondent Victoria Flores, is the owner of an adjoining lot
where a house has windows overlooking the adjoining property of
Masongsong, leaving a distance of less than two meters between the two
houses. Separating the two houses is public alley. The title of petitioner
extends over such alley.
Issue:
Whether or not an alley constructed in accordance with the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila, and open to the public, falls within the
provisions of the Civil code concerning the easements of light and view
inapplicable to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare.
Held:
The Court held that a private alley open to the public, under the
circumstances of this case, falls within the exception provided by article

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

584 of the Civil Code to article 582 thereof, and that accordingly the
plaintiff has no legal cause of action.
Article 582 of the Civil Code 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 two meters
between the wall in which they are built and such adjoining property.
Article 584 of the Civil Code makes the provisions of article 582
inapplicable to buildings separated by a public thoroughfare. Article 584
must be harmonized with municipal ordinances.
Severina and Flora Choco v. Santamaria
21 Phil. 132
Facts:
Defendant Santamaria is in possession of a parcel of land on the corner of
Calles Pescadores and P.Rada in Tondo, Manila. There he erected a
house flush with the boundary line of the adjacent property; that the
plaintiffs are the owners of the land on both sides of defendants house.
Defendant made several openings and windows in the walls of the house
on both sides overlooking the property of the plaintiffs Choco. Although a
written protest has been made by the plaintiffs and an amicable
adjustment has been suggested, the two parties failed to reach a
compromise, hence, no adjustment was made on the windows. Apparently,
the windows of the defendants building miserably failed the requisites
provided by law: either the windows under the ceiling did not 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 wire screen.
The rear wall windows were 50 x 80 cm. The right wall windows were 25 x
35 cm in the 2nd storey , and 25 x 25 cm in the 1st storey. The other
windows were 35 x 67 cm, and 75 x 90, all of which covered by wire
screening only. The law provides in Article 581 of the Civil Code (article
669, New Civil Code), the owner of a wall which is not a party wall,
adjoining anothers estate, amy make in it windows or openings 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. In the
instant case, the windows are in a wall not a party wall adjoining the
Choco estate and the windows are more or less than 30cm 2 and have a
11

wire screen but there does not appear to be the iron grate embedded in
the wall. The Chocos files a case to close all the windows of defendants
building. The court ruled in their favor but did not order the permanent
closing of window 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 because only window 7 was not under
the ceiling, and window 1 in the balcony of the back part of defendants
building. Hence. This appeal. The lower court said that window 1 in the
balcony overlooks Calle Padre Rada and that though the Chocos lot can
be seen from this window, it is not contiguous to their property.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not window 1 should be closed.
(2) Whether or not windows 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 should be permanently
closed.
Held:
(1) Yes. If it is in front of the Chocos lot, it is unquestionable that it
directly overlooks the same; but even though it did not only a side or
oblique view of the lot could be obtained from it, it could not be kept open,
since between it and the Chocos property, there does not intervene the
distance required by law- that of 2m in the 1 st case, and 60 cm in the 2nd
case. In reality, there is no distance at all between the said window and the
Chocos lot because as the Supreme Court has said, the window is
perpendicular to the boundary line of the said lot; therefore, its opening is
a manifest violation of Art. 582 of the Civil Code (Article 670, New Civil
Code) which states that:
Windows with direct views, or balconies or any similar openings projecting
over the estate of the neighbor, cannot be made if there is not a distance
of at least 2m between the wall in which they are built and said estate.
Neither can side nor oblique views be opened over said property unless
there is a distance of 60cm.
Hence, the defendant is ordered to close finally and forever window 1.
(2) No. They cannot be permanently closed because only window 7 is
not immediately under the ceiling (techos). By techo is understood that a
part of a construction which covers the rooms under it and certainly forms

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

one of the essential parts of every story. A story is composed of earth,

pavement and ceiling, the latter, that is, the ceiling, being part of the story
that is visible to the observer situated below in the room covered by it.
Consequently, every storey has a ceiling, and not, as the Chocos maintain,
the upper one alone. If windows 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 comply with
requirements of the law under Article 581 (Article 669, New Civil Code)
they can be reopened.
Cid v. Javier
No. L-14116; January 20, 1961
Facts:
Petitioner's construction of a building allegedly being made in violation of
Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909 of the municipality of Laoag,
and in disregard of respondent's right to light and view. Respondents'
house, as well as that of petitioner, are within their respective properties
that respondents' wall stands only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the
2 lots, whereas, the wall of petitioner's building was constructed 1 meter
from the boundary or 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the wall of the
house of respondents. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of
the two houses overlap each other by 24 centimeters. This, the Court of
Appeals declared to be violative of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909,
amending Sections 1, 5, 6, and 13 of the Municipal Ordinance of June 3,
1903, which requires a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to
eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials.
Issue:
Whether or not __________
Held: It must be noted, however, that the Ordinance in question was
adopted since 1909 and was, therefore, already in force at the time the
house of respondents was reconstructed in 1946 after the building
originally erected thereon was burned in 1942. If respondents constructed
their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner has
constructed hers, there would be no overlapping of the eaves and there
would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view
of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and
the consequential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed
12

to petitioner, as to require her alone to make the adjustments necessary

for the observance of the 2-meter eaves-to-eaves distance from her
neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be exacted, the
adjustments should be made not only by petitioner, but also by the
respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the
injunction.
Granting that in the instant case an easement of light and view was
acquired by prescription, it was cut off or extinguished by the registration of
the servient estate under the Torrens System without the easement being
annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, pursuant to Sec. 39 of
the Land Registration Act (Act 496).
Soriano vs Sternberg, November 18, 1920
Facts:
The plaintiff desires to obtain a judicial order, to compel the defendant to
close the windows in the wall of his house adjacent to the property of the
plaintiff, because the wall of defendants house is less than 2 meters from
the division line. The defendant pleads prescription and relies exclusively
upon this defense. The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs contention
and ordered the windows of the defendants house to be closed, with cost
against the defendant.
Issue:
Whether or not a right action to enforce Article 670 of the Civil Code may
be lost by failure to prosecute within the prescriptive period fixed by the
Code of Civil Procedure.
Held:
It should be first noted that the defendant in this case has never prohibited
the plaintiff from building on his, the plaintiffs, own land, any wall that he
may desire to construct. Further, it should be noted that the offending
edifice of the defendant was constructed in 1905. This was the year when
the defendant violated the law. This was the date when the cause of action
accrued. Nevertheless, the windows complained of were permitted to be
open for thirteen years without protest. The plaintiff must consequently, by

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View

reason of his own laches, be considered to have waived any right which
he may have had to compel the windows to be closed.

13

Civil Code of the Philippines | Property Easement of Light and View