Property Case Digest | Cortes v. Yu-Tibo
Cortes v. Yu-Tibo
2 Phil 24
Facts:
The property of the wife of the plaintiff has certain windows through which it receives light and air. These windows have been in the existence since the year 1843 and the defendant, the tenant of the adjacent house has commenced certain work with the view to raising the roof of the house in such a manner that one-half of the windows in plaintiff’s house has been covered, thus depriving the building of a large part of the air and light formerly received through the window. The contention of the plaintiff is that by the constant and uninterrupted use of the windows during a period of fifty-nine years he acquired from prescription an easement of light in favor of his house, and as a servitude upon the adjacent house and, consequently, has acquired the right to restrain the making of any improvements in the latter house which might in any manner be prejudicial to the enjoyment of the said easement. He contends that the easement of light is positive and that therefore the period of possession for the purposes of the acquisition of a prescriptive title is to begin from the date on which the enjoyment of the same commenced. The defendant, on the contrary, contends that the easement is negative, and that therefore the time for the prescriptive acquisition thereof must begin from the date on which the owner of the dominant estate may have prohibited, by a formal act, the owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful but for the existence of the easement.
Issue:
Are windows placed on the owner’s house considered as positive easement?
No, citing Spanish Held:
jurisprudence, the said court holds that “the prescription of the easement of lights does not take place unless there has been some act of opposition on the part of the person attempting to acquire such a right against the person attempting to obstruct its enjoyment because they are of a negative character, can not be acquired by a prescriptive title, even if continuous, or although they may have been used for more than twenty-eight years, if the indispensable requisite for prescription is absent, which is the prohibition on the one part, and the consent on the other, of the freedom of the tenement which it is sought to charge with the easement”. That the easement of light which is the object of this litigation is of a negative character, and therefore pertains to the class which can not be acquired by prescription as provided by article 538 of the Civil Code, except by counting the time of possession from the date on which the owner of the dominant estate has, in a formal manner, forbidden the owner of the servient estate to do an act which would be lawful were it not for the easement.
More From oflodor
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Cortes v. Yu-Tibo
- Property Case Digest | Saenz v. Hermanos
- Property Case Digest | Purugganan v. Paredes
- Property Case Digest | Gargantos v. Yanon
- Property Case Digest | Cid v. Javier Digest
- Property Case Digest | Fabie v. Lichauco
- Property Case Digest | Purugganan v. Paredes
- Property Case Digest | Severina and Flora Choco v. Santamaria
- Property Case Digest | Masongsong v. Flores
- Case Digest | Villanueva v. Velasco
