G.R. No. 36048 ; September 24, 1932
ALEJANDRO MASONGSONG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTORIA FLORES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Alejandro Masongsong owns a lot in Manila with a Torrens title that extends over an alley. Defendant Victoria Flores (through her husband) owns an adjoining lot with a house constructed in 1925-1926. This house has windows overlooking Masongsong’s property, with a distance of less than two meters between the houses, separated by an alley. The alley, though designated as a “public alley” on official sketches, is part of Masongsong’s titled property. When Masongsong applied for a building permit in 1928, he agreed to conditions that the alley would be an officially approved private alley opened to the public, maintained by him, and never closed as long as any building accesses it. Masongsong filed suit in 1929 to enforce the distance requirement for windows under the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether an alley constructed under Manila ordinances and open to the public qualifies as a “public thoroughfare” under Article 584 of the Civil Code, thereby exempting the defendant’s windows from the two-meter distance requirement under Article 582.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the private alley opened to the public under the circumstances falls within the exception of Article 584. The alley, though privately maintained, is open to general public use as required by Manila ordinances and is functionally equivalent to a public thoroughfare. Therefore, Article 582 (requiring a two-meter distance for windows overlooking adjoining property) does not apply, and Masongsong has no cause of action. The Court noted that Masongsong’s delay in asserting his right also approached estoppel. The dissent argued that the alley remained private because Masongsong retained obligations and potential future control over it.

AI Generated by Armztrong.