G.R. No. 911 : March 12, 1903
MAXIMO CORTES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE PALANCA YU-TIBO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Maximo Cortes, as the husband of the owner of house No. 65 Calle Rosario, sought an injunction to restrain Jose Palanca Yu-Tibo, the tenant of the adjacent house No. 63, from continuing construction work that raised the roof of house No. 63. This construction covered half of the windows of house No. 65, depriving it of light and air. The windows had existed since 1843. The trial court initially issued a preliminary injunction but later dissolved it upon final judgment, ruling against Cortes. Cortes appealed, contending he had acquired an easement of light by prescription through uninterrupted use for fifty-nine years.

ISSUE:
Whether the easement of light, with respect to windows opened in one’s own wall, is positive or negative in character, and consequently, whether it can be acquired by prescription without a formal act of prohibition against the owner of the servient estate.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the easement of light in this case is negative in character. When windows are opened in a wall belonging entirely to the owner of the dominant estate (as was the case here), their use is merely an act of ownership and is tolerated by the adjacent owner. The adjacent owner retains the right to build on his own property and obstruct those windows. Therefore, the true easement consists not in the act of opening or using the windows, but in the obligation of the servient owner not to impede the light (ne luminibus officiatur).

Being a negative easement, its acquisition by prescription under Article 538 of the Civil Code requires that the period of possession be counted from the date the owner of the dominant estate performed a formal act prohibiting the owner of the servient estate from doing an act which would be lawful but for the easement (e.g., building to obstruct the light). Since Cortes failed to prove any such formal act of prohibition prior to filing the complaint, he did not acquire the easement by prescription. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dissolving the injunction.

Note: The digest covers the main decision. The subsequent denials of the Motion for Rehearing and the Motion for a Writ of Error to the U.S. Supreme Court are omitted as they pertain to procedural matters and do not alter the substantive ruling.