G.R. No. L-14652. June 30, 1960 (Case Brief / Digest)

**Title:** Gargantos vs. Yanon: Establishment of Easement of Light and View

### Facts:

The dispute commenced with Francisco Sanz, who subdivided and sold portions of his property in Romblon to various buyers. Guillermo Tengtio initially purchased a portion, which was subsequently sold to Vicente Uy Veza. Another portion, along with a house, was sold to Tan Yanon in 1927. The remaining section, including a camarin and a small building after changing multiple hands, was acquired by Juan Gargantos. When Gargantos proposed to construct a residential house and warehouse on his lot, Yanon objected, fearing obstruction of light and view from his property. This opposition led to a legal battle, first at the Municipal Council of Romblon, later escalating to the Court of First Instance of Romblon, culminating in an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally, reaching the Supreme Court. Gargantos petitioned for a review of the appellate court’s judgment, which had favored Yanon by invoking the applicable easement provisions of the New Civil Code.

### Issues:

1. Whether Tan Yanon’s property has an easement of light and view over Gargantos’ property.
2. The applicability of the doctrine in Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo to this case.
3. The interpretation and application of Articles 538, O.C.C. (now Article 621, N.C.C.) and Article 541, O.C.C. (now Article 624, N.C.C.), in relation to the creation and existence of an easement.

### Court’s Decision:

1. The Supreme Court determined that Yanon’s property indeed has an easement of light and view against Gargantos’ property. This conclusion was based on the pre-existence of doors and windows on the side of Yanon’s house facing Gargantos’ property, which were intended for light and view.
2. The Court dismissed Gargantos’ reliance on the Cortes vs. Yu-Tibo case, explaining that the situation differed since the properties in question originated from a single owner.
3. The Court further elucidated the legal framework surrounding easements, especially when properties were formerly owned by a single proprietor. The existence of windows and doors serving as passages for light and view before the alienation constituted an apparent sign of easement, effectively binding the current owners.

### Doctrine:

The case solidifies the doctrine that an easement of light and view can be established by the presence of apparent signs, like windows and doors, intended for such purposes when two estates are alienated from a common owner. This is in line with Article 624 of the New Civil Code (formerly Article 541, O.C.C.), emphasizing that such signs, if not explicitly negated or removed upon division and sale, are tantamount to a title confirming the easement’s existence.

### Class Notes:

**Essential Concepts:**
– An easement of light and view is recognized under Philippine law when there are apparent and permanent signs (like windows or doors) established by a common owner before alienation.
– Legal Provisions: Article 621 (formerly 538 O.C.C.) and Article 624 (formerly 541 O.C.C.) of the New Civil Code.
– *Key Principle:* The existence of an easement arising post-alienation underscores the importance of the physical and visible signs of easement established by a common owner.

**Application:**
– When dealing with properties that have been subdivided and sold, it’s crucial to identify any existing signs of easement, which might impose obligations or limitations on the use of the property by new owners.
– The establishment or acknowledgment of an easement by previous actions or improvements by a common owner binds subsequent owners, enforcing passive continuation of said easement unless explicitly negated in the deeds of alienation.

### Historical Background:

The context of this case within Philippine legal history underlines the importance of understanding property rights and obligations, specifically easements, a common issue in a country where property is often passed down, subdivided, and sold multiple times. It reflects the intricate balance between the rights of property owners and the societal and legal recognition of natural light and view as valuable and protectable interests.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters