Facts:

The case involves Teofilo Alolino as the petitioner and Fortunato Flores and Anastacia Marie Flores as the respondents. The events leading to the case began in 1994 when the respondents constructed a house and sari-sari store on a municipal road adjacent to Alolino's property located at No. 47 Gen. Luna Street, Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig. Alolino is the registered owner of two contiguous parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 784 and 976, with areas of 26 square meters and 95 square meters, respectively. Initially, Alolino built a bungalow-type house on his property, which he later expanded to a two-storey structure with terraces and six windows. The respondents' construction was only a few inches away from Alolino's house, obstructing three windows and the exit door, thereby depriving Alolino of light, ventilation, and access to the municipal road.

Alolino demanded the removal of the respondents' structure, but they refused. He s...

Facts:

Ownership and Construction of Property
Teofilo Alolino is the registered owner of two contiguous parcels of land in Taguig, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 784 and 976. He initially constructed a bungalow on the property in 1976, added a second floor in 1980, and extended the house to the edge of his property. The house has six windows and terraces on both floors.

Respondents' Construction
In 1994, the respondents, Fortunato and Anastacia (Marie) Flores, constructed a house/sari-sari store on a vacant municipal/barrio road adjacent to the rear perimeter wall of Alolino’s house. The structure was built without a building permit, as it was on a municipal road. It was only 2-3 inches away from Alolino’s house, blocking five windows and a rear exit door, depriving him of light, ventilation, and access to the road.

Notices of Illegal Construction
Alolino complained to the Building Official of Taguig, who issued a Notice of Illegal Construction in 1995, ordering the respondents to stop construction. In 2001/2002, the respondents began constructing a second floor without a permit, prompting another notice in 2002. Despite these notices, the respondents refused to comply.

Legal Actions
Alolino filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 2003, seeking the removal of the structure, enforcement of his easement rights, and damages. The RTC ruled in Alolino's favor, finding the structure a public and private nuisance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision, dismissing the complaint.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Easement of Light and View
   Alolino did not acquire an easement of light and view by prescription as he did not formally prohibit the respondents from blocking his windows as required under Article 668 of the Civil Code. Additionally, the National Building Code’s setback requirements did not apply since the property was adjacent to a barrio road.

2. Public Nuisance
   The respondents' structure is a public nuisance because it was illegally constructed on a barrio road, obstructing public use and benefiting private individuals. The Sanggunian’s resolution reclassifying the road as residential was ineffective as it was not passed as an ordinance and did not comply with the Local Government Code.

3. Reclassification of the Barrio Road
   The barrio road remains property of public dominion. The respondents' argument that it was reclassified as residential was rejected because the Sanggunian failed to comply with the legal requirements for withdrawing public property from use.

4. Removal of the Structure
   The structure must be removed as it constitutes a nuisance per se, obstructing public use of the road and infringing on Alolino’s property rights. The CA erred in invoking Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act, which allows demolition of structures on public roads.