Descripción de la Prueba

FACTS: The defendant in the building of his house, has made several openings and windows in the walls of the house on both sides overlooking then property of the plaintiff; that at the time the defendant was building his house, and the windows and the openings were being made, the plaintiffs protested, and later on and in the year 1905 made written protest and demand on the defendant, and the defendant received the written protest and referred it to his counsel, who, from the evidence, appears to have suggested an amicable and adjustment of the matter, but the adjustment was not made, and this action was brought. The Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Severina and Flora Choco, and against the defendant, Isidro Santamaria, forever prohibiting the opening of the window stated, which must be closed, and forever prohibiting the opening of the windows and openings marked, which must be closed or made to conform to the requirements of law with regard to dimensions and an iron grate embedded in the wall, with the costs of the action.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred by not ordering in his judgment the final and perpetual closing of the large window opened in the balcony of the back part of the appellee's house and that, though the appellant's lot can be seen through the window, it is not contiguous to the latter's property.

HELD: To judge from the photographic views, it opens on the boundary line between the said lot and that the appellee and is situated perpendicularly above a part of the wall that belongs to the appellants. This opinion is corroborated by the testimony of the defendant's witness who took the said photographs, in so far as he said that "a part of

the window in question is in front of the plaintiffs' property, since between it and the plaintiffs' property there does not intervene the distance required by law — that of two meters in the first case, and 60 centimeters in the second, therefore, its opening is a manifest violation of the provisions of article 582 of the Civil Code which reads as follows: “Windows with direct views, or balconies or any similar openings projecting over the estate of the neighbor, cannot be made if there is not a distance of, at least, 2 meters between the wall in which they are built and said estate. Neither can side nor oblique views be opened over said property, unless there is a distance of 60 centimeters.” Because of the lack of the distance required by law, the window in question must be closed, and consequently the judgment appealed from should be modified in this sense, as regards this window.

Solid Manila Corporation v. Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. G.R. No. 90596, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA 748

Sarmiento, J.

FACTS: Petitioner Solid Manila Corporation is the owner of the land in Ermita, Manila. The same lies in the vicinity of another parcel, registered in the name of the private respondent Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc. The private respondent’s title came from a prior owner, and in their deed of sale, the parties thereto reserved as easement of way. As a consequence, there is an annotation which was entered wherein a construction of private alley has been undertaken. However, the petitioner averred that they and their neighbors have been using the private alley and maintained and contributed to its upkeep until sometime in 1983. Due to this, the private respondent constructed steel gates that precluded unhampered used. The petitioner commenced suit for injunction against the private respondent to have the gates removed and to allow full access to the easement. The court a quo issued ex parte an order directing the private respondent to open the gates. However, the Court of Appeals ordered the restoration of the annotation. They ruled that an easement is a mere limitation on ownership and that it does not impair the private respondent’s title, and that since the private respondent had acquired title to the property, “merger” brought about an extinguishment of the easement. The petitioner then averred that the very deed of sale executed between the private respondent and the previous owner of the property “excluded” the alley in question, and that in any event, the intent of the parties was to retain the “alley” as an easement, notwithstanding the sale.

ISSUE: Whether or not an easement had been extinguished by merger.

HELD: No. The Court held that no genuine merger took place as a consequence of the sale in favor of the private respondent corporation. According to the Civil Code, a merger exists when ownership of the dominant and servient estates is consolidated in the same person. Merger then, as can be seen, requires full ownership of both estates. One thing ought to be noted here, however. The servitude in question is a personal

for the benefit of the general public as stated in Article 614 of the Civil Code. In personal servitude, there is therefore no “owner of a dominant tenement” to speak of, and the easement pertains to persons without a dominant estate, in this case, the public at large. Merger, as we said, presupposes the existence of a prior servient-dominant owner relationship, and the termination of that relation leaves the easement of no use. Unless the owner conveys the property in favor of the public, if that is possible, no genuine merger can take place that would terminate a personal easement.

Floro v. Llenado

G.R. No. 75723, June 2, 1995, 244 SCRA 713