G.R. No. L-2085, TIBURCIO SAENZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FIGUERAS HERMANOS, defendant-appellee., August 10, 1909

FACTS:
Tiburcio Saenz (plaintiff-appellant) and Figueras Hermanos (defendant-appellee) own adjoining lots in Iloilo. Figueras Hermanos constructed a two-story house on their lot, positioning its wall only 70-71 centimeters from the dividing line with Saenz‘s property. In this wall, Figueras Hermanos opened multiple windows (three on the ground floor, five on the upper floor) and constructed two balconies, all providing direct views into Saenz‘s vacant lot, and all less than two meters from the dividing line. Figueras Hermanos did not obtain Saenz‘s permission. Saenz filed a complaint, invoking Articles 581 and 582 of the Civil Code, seeking the closure of these openings and a prohibition against future non-conforming constructions. The lower court acknowledged that the windows violated Article 582 but denied Saenz‘s petition, reasoning that Saenz had allowed the partial construction without objection and suffered only “sentimental damages,” thereby implying estoppel. Saenz appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Figueras Hermanos‘s construction of windows and balconies with direct views less than two meters from Saenz‘s property violates Article 582 of the Civil Code.
2. Whether Saenz‘s alleged failure to object during construction bars his claim for the closure of said openings under the doctrine of estoppel.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s decision.
1. Yes, Figueras Hermanos‘s construction violated Article 582 of the Civil Code. Article 582 explicitly prohibits the construction of windows with direct views, or balconies or similar openings, less than two meters from an adjoining estate. The defendant’s house wall was only 70-71 centimeters from the dividing line, clearly infringing this provision. Article 581 further specifies the only type of openings allowed in a wall built closer than two meters from the dividing line (light openings, 30cm square, grated, screened, at ceiling height).
2. No, Saenz‘s alleged failure to object did not bar his claim. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked against a plaintiff when the law imposes an express duty on the defendant and prohibits certain acts. It was the defendant’s duty to construct its house in accordance with the law, and the plaintiff was not obliged to supervise the construction to ensure compliance. The defendant alone is to blame for not constructing its house in the manner provided by law.

Therefore, Figueras Hermanos is not entitled to the easement of light and view provided by the non-conforming windows and balconies. The Court ordered Figueras Hermanos to close the direct view openings and windows looking directly upon Saenz‘s property within thirty days.