G.R. No. L-14652; June 30, 1960
JUAN GARGANTOS, petitioner, vs. TAN YANON and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The late Francisco Sanz owned a parcel of land in Romblon, which he subdivided into three portions. One portion, with a house of strong materials, was sold in 1927 to respondent Tan Yanon. This house had doors and windows on its northeastern side overlooking the adjacent third portion, which, after passing through several hands, was ultimately acquired by petitioner Juan Gargantos. The doors and windows existed at the time of Tan Yanon’s purchase. In 1955, Gargantos obtained a permit to demolish the roof of an old camarin on his lot and later applied for a permit to construct a combined residential house and warehouse. Tan Yanon opposed this application and filed an action to restrain Gargantos from constructing a building that would obstruct the light and view from his windows, unless the building was erected at least three meters from the boundary line. The Court of First Instance of Romblon dismissed the complaint and awarded damages to Gargantos. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision and enjoined Gargantos from constructing unless he maintained the three-meter distance under Article 673 of the New Civil Code. Gargantos then petitioned for review, arguing that no easement was acquired by title or prescription.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Tan Yanon’s property has an easement of light and view against petitioner Gargantos’s property.

RULING

Yes, respondent’s property has an easement of light and view against petitioner’s property. The Court held that Article 541 of the Old Civil Code (now Article 624 of the New Civil Code) applies because both estates were formerly owned by a single proprietor, Francisco Sanz, who constructed the house with windows and doors overlooking the adjacent lot. The existence of these apparent signs of easement at the time of alienation constitutes a title for the easement to continue actively and passively, unless the contrary was stated in the deed or the sign was removed before execution. Since the deed of sale to Tan Yanon did not stipulate against the easement, and the visible signs (doors and windows) persisted, the easement was established upon the division of ownership. The prescriptive doctrine in Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo is inapplicable here due to the single prior ownership. Accordingly, petitioner Gargantos cannot construct any building on his land unless it is erected at a distance of not less than three meters from the boundary line. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.