[WITH RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 20, 1961]

Javier versus Barrera

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals, brought by the owner of a servient lot against her neighbors, the owners of the dominant lot. The respondents, Irene Javier and her co-owners, built a house on their own land with windows overlooking the adjoining land of the petitioner, and they claimed to have acquired by prescription an easement of light and view. That claim rested on a verbal prohibition said to have been made in 1913 or 1914 against the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of the phrase "formal act" in the old law on negative easements, and because it shows how the Torrens system cuts off an unannotated easement.

Procedural History

The case began in the trial court, which found for the respondents and declared that they had acquired the easement of light and view by prescription. The trial court also issued a preliminary injunction against the petitioner's construction. The petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects, agreeing that the formal act of prohibition required by the old Civil Code could be either written or verbal. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review by certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, dissolved the injunction, and remanded the case to the court of origin for adjudication of damages, if any, occasioned by the issuance of the injunction. The respondents moved for reconsideration, and the Court denied that motion in a resolution dated January 20, 1961.

Facts

The respondents owned a building erected on their own lot, and that building had windows overlooking the adjacent lot of the petitioner. The two lots were covered by Torrens certificates of title issued in pursuance of registration decrees dated December 27, 1937. The respondents claimed that in 1913 or 1914, a verbal prohibition had been made upon the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, forbidding him to obstruct the light and view from those windows. Counting twenty years from 1913 or 1914, the respondents argued that the easement had ripened by prescription well before the 1937 decrees of registration.

The petitioner constructed a building on her own lot, and the respondents complained that this construction violated their right to light and view. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against the petitioner's construction, and both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the respondents' claim of an easement.

In the resolution of January 20, 1961, the Court noted further facts. The respondents' wall stood only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the two lots, while the petitioner's wall was constructed 1 meter from the boundary, or 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the respondents' wall. As a result, the eaves of the two houses overlapped each other by 24 centimeters. The Court of Appeals held this to be violative of a municipal ordinance of Laoag requiring a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to eaves, between adjoining buildings of strong materials. That ordinance had been in force since 1909, and was therefore already in force when the respondents reconstructed their house in 1946, after the original building was burned in 1942.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents acquired by prescription an enforceable easement of light and view by virtue of a verbal prohibition made upon the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest.
• Whether or not, assuming such an easement had been acquired, it was extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens system without the easement being annotated on the certificate of title.
• Whether or not the injunction against the petitioner's construction should be continued, in light of the ordinance on the distance between adjoining buildings.

Applicable Provisions

Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code, which governs because the alleged prohibition was made in 1913 or 1914, before the present Civil Code took effect, provides:

"ART. 538. In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in the next preceding article, the time of the possession shall be computed, * * * in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate has, by a formal act, forbidden the owner of the servient estate to perform any act which would be lawful without the easement."

The whole case turns on the phrase "a formal act" in this article, and whether a verbal prohibition satisfies it.

Article 621 of the new Civil Code, which the Court treats as a clarification of the old requirement, provides that the prohibition must be in an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. The Court cites it to confirm that a formal act means a solemn written act, not a mere verbal prohibition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that a verbal prohibition does not satisfy the law. The law is explicit: it requires not any form of prohibition, but a formal act. The Court defined the terms: formal means characterized by due form or order, done in due form or with solemnity; and act, in the civil law, means a writing which states in legal form that a thing has been done, said, or agreed. From these definitions, the phrase "formal act" requires not merely any writing, but one executed in due form and with solemnity. The Court explained that this is the intendment of the law, which is why Article 621 of the new Civil Code specifically requires the prohibition to be in an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Easements are an encumbrance on the servient estate and a limitation of the dominical right of its owner, so negative easements cannot be acquired by less formal means.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that even conceding that the easement had been acquired, it was cut off or extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens system, since no annotation of the easement appeared on the certificate of title. The Court noted that both certificates of title contained no annotation of the supposed easement, which, counting twenty years from 1913 or 1914, would already have ripened by 1937, the date of the decrees of registration.

On the third issue, in the resolution of January 20, 1961, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court reasoned that if the respondents had constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as the petitioner did, there would have been no overlapping of the eaves and no violation of the ordinance. As things stood, the overlapping and the consequential violation could not entirely be attributed to the petitioner, so as to require her alone to make the adjustments. If compliance with the ordinance were exacted, the adjustment should be made not only by the petitioner but also by the respondents. There was therefore no reason for the continuation of the injunction.

Doctrine

A negative easement, such as an easement of light and view, cannot be acquired by prescription through a mere verbal prohibition. Under Article 538 of the Spanish Civil Code, the prohibition must be made by a formal act, meaning one executed in due form and with solemnity, and Article 621 of the new Civil Code clarifies this by requiring an instrument acknowledged before a notary public. Easements are an encumbrance on the servient estate and a limitation of the owner's dominical right, so they cannot be acquired by less formal means. Further, an easement not annotated on the certificate of title of the servient estate is cut off or extinguished by the registration of that estate under the Torrens system.

Disposition

The petitioner won: the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dissolved the injunction, and remanded the case to the court of origin for adjudication of the damages, if any, occasioned by the issuance of the injunction, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a negative easement requires a formal act of prohibition, meaning a solemn written act, and a verbal prohibition will not do. Examiners use this case to test the formal act requirement for negative easements and the rule that an unannotated easement is extinguished by Torrens registration.