GR 228334; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228334 , June 17, 2019
Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia, Petitioners, vs. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita Tan, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Sps. Garcia are the owners of a one-storey house on Lot 2. They purchased the property in 1998 from respondents Sps. Santos, who owned the adjacent Lot 1, which was then vacant. In 2009, the Sps. Santos began constructing a two-storey house on Lot 1. The Sps. Garcia filed a complaint, alleging the new structure obstructed their light, air, and view, violated the three-meter distance rule under Article 670 of the Civil Code, and that excavations on Lot 1 deprived lateral support to their fence. They sought damages and injunctive relief.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Sps. Garcia failed to prove the acquisition of any easement. The Sps. Garcia elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Sps. Garcia acquired, by title or prescription, easements of light and view, and lateral support over the adjoining Lot 1 owned by the Sps. Santos.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic is anchored on the modes of acquiring easements under the Civil Code. Easements of light and view are discontinuous and apparent easements. Under Article 622, discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title. There was no title, such as an agreement or stipulation in the deed of sale, granting such an easement to the Sps. Garcia. Acquisition by prescription under Article 620 is inapplicable because prescription requires the easement to be continuous and apparent; discontinuous easements like light and view cannot be acquired by prescription.
The Court further ruled that Article 670, which mandates a three-meter distance for windows with direct views, applies prospectively. It governs the making of new openings, not the preservation of pre-existing ones. Since the Sps. Garcia’s windows existed when the servient estate (Lot 1) was vacant, the legal distance rule was not triggered. The owner of the servient estate (Sps. Santos) retains the right to build on their land, even if it obstructs the view, unless a specific easement has been acquired. No such easement was established. Regarding lateral support, the Sps. Garcia failed to present evidence that the excavations caused actual damage or instability to their property. The claim was therefore unsubstantiated.