G.R. No. L-14116. January 20, 1961.
LAUREANA A. CID, petitioner, vs. IRENE P. JAVIER, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a dispute over the construction of a building by petitioner Laureana A. Cid, which respondents (the Javier family) alleged violated Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909, of Laoag, and infringed on their right to light and view. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction against Cid’s construction, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found that the eaves of Cid’s building and the respondents’ house overlapped by 24 centimeters, violating the ordinance which mandates a minimum distance of two meters measured from eaves to eaves for adjoining buildings of strong materials.
In a Decision promulgated on June 30, 1960, this Court ordered the lifting of the preliminary injunction. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the lower court’s factual finding of a violation—which they emphasized was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and from which no appeal was taken—had become final and thus justified making the injunction permanent.

ISSUE

Whether the preliminary injunction against petitioner’s construction should be made permanent based on the final finding of a violation of the municipal ordinance.

RULING

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the lifting of the injunction. The legal logic rests on the principle of relative responsibility and the historical context of the construction. While the overlapping eaves technically violate the 1909 ordinance, the violation cannot be attributed solely to the petitioner. The record shows that respondents’ house was reconstructed in 1946 after a fire. At that time, the 1909 ordinance was already in force. Respondents built their wall only 50 centimeters from the property boundary. In contrast, petitioner constructed her wall one meter from the boundary, or 1.5 meters from respondents’ wall.
The Court reasoned that if respondents had also constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner did, no overlapping of eaves would have occurred, and there would be no violation. Therefore, the present encroachment and breach of the ordinance are the consequence of both parties’ construction choices. To demand compliance with the ordinance, any necessary adjustment to achieve the required two-meter eaves distance must be borne by both adjoining owners, not by the petitioner alone. Since equity does not favor imposing the entire burden of correction on one party, there is no legal basis to perpetuate the injunction solely against the petitioner. The injunction was properly lifted.