CID vs Javier

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 petitioner’s predecessor-in-
interest as owner of the adjoining lot, both of which lots being covered by Torrens titles.

RULING: NO.

Art538’s 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.