G.R. No. L-15628; November 18, 1920
MANUEL SORIANO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OSCAR STERNBERG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Manuel Soriano filed an action to compel defendant Oscar Sternberg to close the windows and a gallery in the wall of his house, which directly overlooked Soriano’s adjoining property. The stipulated facts established that the wall containing these openings was only 1.36 meters from the dividing line between their lots, which is less than the 2-meter distance required by Article 582 of the Civil Code. Sternberg’s building with these openings had existed in the same condition since 1905. Both parties held Torrens titles to their respective properties, with no easement of light or view indicated in either title. The defendant raised prescription as his sole defense.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff’s action to compel the closure of the windows, based on a violation of Article 582 of the Civil Code, has prescribed due to the lapse of time.

RULING:
Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint.
The Court held that the cause of action accrued in 1905 when the defendant constructed the building with the offending windows in violation of Article 582. The plaintiff’s right to enforce this legal provision is subject to the statute of limitations under Chapter III of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sets a maximum period for bringing an action. Since the windows had remained open without protest for approximately thirteen years before the suit was filed, the action had prescribed. The plaintiff’s acquisition of the property in 1917 did not interrupt or suspend the running of the prescriptive period, which began from the date of the violation. The plaintiff, by his inaction, was deemed to have waived his right to seek the closure of the windows.