SPS. TEDY GARCIA AND PILAR GARCIA, PETITIONERS, V. LORETA T. SANTOS, WINSTON SANTOS AND CONCHITA TAN, RESPONDENTS.

Garcia versus Santos

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Spouses Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia against Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos and Conchita Tan. The Garcias sued to be declared owners of an easement of light, air, and view over the adjoining lot of the Santoses, and to stop the Santoses from building a taller house that would block the light and view from the Garcias' windows. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to clarify how an easement of light and view may be acquired by title, not only by prescription, when two adjoining estates were once owned by a single owner and an apparent sign of easement was left in place at the time of the sale.

Procedural History

The Garcias filed a complaint for easements of light, air, and view, lateral support, and intermediate distances, with damages, before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against further construction, later lifted. After the Garcias rested their case, the Santoses filed a demurrer to evidence, which the trial court denied. The Santoses challenged that denial by a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division, which denied the petition, and that denial became final and executory.

Trial then continued, and the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Santoses and dismissed the complaint, holding that the Garcias never acquired any easement of light and view either by title or by prescription. The Garcias appealed to the Court of Appeals, Special Eighteenth Division, which affirmed the trial court in full. The Garcias moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The Garcias then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

The Garcias own a lot in Southville Subdivision, Molo, Iloilo City, covered by a transfer certificate of title, which they bought from the Santoses in October 1998. A one-storey residential house already stood on that lot when they bought it, and they have occupied the property for about eleven years. At the time of the purchase, the adjoining lot, Lot 1, still belonged to the Santoses and was idle land with no improvements.

Lot 1 remained empty until the Santoses began constructing a two-storey residential house on it in January 2009. Because the new building was taller than the Garcias' one-storey house, the Garcias claimed it obstructed their right to light, air, and view. They said their house became dark, forcing them to switch on lights to do ordinary tasks. They also claimed the structure stood less than three meters from the boundary line, and that excavations on Lot 1 deprived their perimeter fence of lateral support. Tedy was erroneously told by construction workers that Tan was the new owner of Lot 1, which is why Tan was impleaded.

The Santoses answered that Tan had nothing to do with the matter and was not the registered owner of Lot 1. They argued that the Garcias never alleged how they acquired the easement, that the mere presence of windows does not create an easement by title, and that there was no tenement on Lot 1 when the Garcias' house was built. They added that the excavations were within Lot 1, were not deep enough to remove support, and caused no damage.

Issues

• Whether or not the doctrine of the law of the case applies because of the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division, in the earlier certiorari proceeding.
• Whether or not the Garcias acquired an easement of light and view over Lot 1 owned by the Santoses.

Applicable Provisions

Article 613 of the Civil Code defines an easement or servitude:

An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.

This provision frames the entire discussion, because the Garcias must show a burden on Lot 1 for the benefit of their own lot.

Article 616 of the Civil Code classifies easements:

Easements may be classified into positive and negative easements. A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself. On the other hand, a negative easement is that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.

The classification matters because it determines how the easement is acquired, whether by prescription from use or from a formal prohibition.

Article 621 of the Civil Code governs acquisition by prescription:

In order to acquire easements by prescription in positive easements, the prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate. With respect to negative easements, the prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement.

This is the rule the lower courts applied, requiring a notarial prohibition before prescription could run on a negative easement.

Article 668 of the Civil Code fixes when the period of prescription is counted:

The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light and view shall be counted: (1) from the time of the opening of the window, if it is through a party wall; or (2) from the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on the dominant estate.

This provision is why the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled against the Garcias, since no notarial prohibition was ever sent.

Article 624 of the Civil Code supplies the decisive rule:

The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.

This article creates title to the easement by the mere existence of an apparent sign left by a single owner when one estate is sold.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the doctrine of the law of the case does not apply. The doctrine states that whatever has once been irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts before the court. But the doctrine applies only when there has been a prior decision on the merits. The earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division, dealt solely with whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the demurrer to evidence. That court itself explained that it discussed the easement of light, air, and view not so much to address the merits of the petition but to illustrate how relentlessly the Garcias pursued their claim. Hence, the first issue was denied.

On the second issue, the Court ruled in favor of the Garcias. The Court explained that an easement of light and view has two components: the easement of light, which admits light and a little air, and the easement of view, which affords a view over the adjoining estate. The easement of view is broader because the easement of light is always included in it. The Court also explained that the easement of light and view is intertwined with the easement not to build higher, because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window.

The Court then classified the easement. As a general rule, an easement of light and view is positive if the window or opening is in a party wall, and negative if the window or opening is through one's own wall. Here, the windows and openings are in the wall of the Garcias' own house, and no party wall is alleged. Under the early case of Cortes versus Yu-Tibo, such an easement is negative and cannot be acquired by prescription except after a formal prohibition. The Court quoted Article 668, which counts the period from the formal prohibition when the window is through a wall on the dominant estate. Since the Garcias never sent any formal notice or notarial prohibition, the trial court and the Court of Appeals concluded they acquired no easement.

The Court, however, held that this conclusion was incorrect in light of Article 624. While the general rule is that a window on the dominant estate's own wall creates a negative easement acquired only by prescription from a formal prohibition, not all such windows may be acquired only through prescription. Easements may also be acquired through title, and title does not necessarily mean a document; it refers to a juridical act or law sufficient to create the encumbrance. Article 624 is one such legal proviso granting title. It applies where two or more estates were previously owned by a single owner. Originally no true easement exists because there is only one owner. When one estate is later alienated and an apparent visible sign of easement exists on it, a title to an easement of light and view arises even without any formal act, unless the contrary is provided in the title of conveyance or the sign is removed before the deed is executed.

The Court found this to be precisely the situation here. Before the Garcias bought the subject property in 1998, both the subject property and Lot 1 were owned by the Santoses. A one-storey house with several windows and openings stood on the subject property, and those openings remained open. In October 1998, the subject property and the house were sold to the Garcias, while the Santoses kept Lot 1. The Court noted that jurisprudence recognizes Article 624 as an exception carved out by the Civil Code, taken out of the coverage of the general rule that an easement of light and view through a window on one's own wall is negative and acquired only by prescription from a formal prohibition. As explained in Amor versus Florentino, Cortes versus Yu-Tibo itself distinguished that case from the situation foreseen in the old Article 541, now Article 624, where no formal act is needed to acquire the easement of light and view.

Doctrine

An easement of light and view may be acquired by title, not only by prescription. Under Article 624 of the Civil Code, when two adjoining estates were owned by a single owner who established or maintained an apparent sign of easement, the alienation of one estate creates a title to the easement, active and passive, unless the contrary is provided in the title of conveyance or the sign is removed before the deed is executed. This is an exception to the general rule that a window or opening on the dominant estate's own wall creates a negative easement, which under Articles 621 and 668 may be acquired by prescription only from the time of a formal prohibition by notarial instrument. A Bar candidate should retain that the apparent sign itself is the title, and that no notarial prohibition is required when Article 624 applies.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition of the Garcias, reversing the Court of Appeals and the trial court, and declared that the Garcias acquired an easement of light and view over Lot 1.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an apparent sign of easement left by a single owner, preserved at the time one estate is sold, is itself a title under Article 624, so no notarial prohibition is needed. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between acquiring an easement of light and view by prescription under Articles 621 and 668 and acquiring it by title under Article 624.