Facts:

The case involves the petitioner Severo Amor, who sought the reversal of a decision made by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, which ruled in favor of the respondents, Gabriel Florentino et al. The essence of the case revolves around whether an easement of light and view was established on a property owned by the respondents, which they argued had been obstructed by the construction of a new house by the petitioner. The original owner of the properties involved was Maria Florentino, who had a house with windows that faced a warehouse or camarin on a neighboring lot. She made a will in 1885, bequeathing the house and its lot to Gabriel and Jose Florentino while the camarin and its respective lot were devised to Maria Encarnacion Florentino. After the original owner’s death in 1892, Maria Encarnacion sold her property (the camarin) to the petitioner in 1911. In January 1938, after nearly three decades, the p

...

Facts:

Background of the Property and Original Ownership

• Over 50 years ago, Maria Florentino owned a residential house and a camarin (warehouse) in Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
• The house featured four windows (three on the upper story and one on the ground floor) on its north side that received light and air from the lot occupied by the camarin.
• On September 6, 1885, Maria Florentino executed her will, devising the house and its lot to Gabriel Florentino and Jose Florentino, while assigning the camarin and its lot to Maria Encarnacion Florentino.

Inheritance and Subsequent Transfer of Property

• Upon Maria Florentino’s death (the Court of Appeals found that she died in 1892, though an alternative view contends 1885), the respective portions of the estate were received by the devisees without any action to alter or remove the four windows.
• The respondents (devisees of the house) continued to enjoy the benefits of light and air through the windows, and no formal renunciation or alteration of the window arrangement was made at the time of the division of the estate.
• On July 14, 1911, Maria Encarnacion Florentino sold her lot and the camarin to petitioner Severo Amor, the deed of sale stating that the property was inherited from her aunt.

Construction and the Emergence of the Dispute

• In January 1938, petitioner Amor demolished the old warehouse and began constructing a new two-story house on the acquired lot.
• On March 1, 1938, the respondents filed an action seeking to prohibit the petitioner from building higher than the original structure and from obstructing the windows that provided the light and air to their house.
• The trial court denied a writ of preliminary injunction because the new construction was nearly completed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

Evidence and Contention on the Date of Death

• The issue arose as to whether Maria Florentino died in 1892, as held by the Court of Appeals, or in 1885, as alleged by the petitioner supported by documentary evidence (burial certificate and gravestone inscription).
• The Court of Appeals based its factual finding largely on the testimony of Gregorio Florentino, whose recollection of events was used to deduce that Maria Florentino died in 1892.
• Petitioner argued that if Maria Florentino had died in 1885, the law applicable should have been the Law of the Partidas rather than the Civil Code, and that new evidence proving the earlier date had been improperly disregarded.

Legal Basis for the Easement

• The trial courts and the majority opinion based their decision on Article 541 of the Civil Code which provides that an "apparent sign" (in this case the four windows) established by the original owner becomes, upon the division of the property and in the absence of any stipulation or removal of the sign, equivalent to a title for an easement for light and view.
• Additionally, the corresponding negative easement (altius non tollendi, or the right not to build higher to obstruct light) is concomitantly imposed.
• The easement was also supported by the principle of prescription since the arrangement had been continuously observed over a long period without objection.

Issue:

Applicability and Effect of Article 541 of the Civil Code

• Whether the appearance of the four windows on the house constitutes an "apparent sign" that by itself creates an easement of light and view (and the concomitant negative easement) upon the division of the property.
• Whether Article 541 applies even if the original owner died in 1885, considering the transitory provisions and the alternative applicable laws (Partidas versus the Civil Code).

Acquisition of Easement by Title Versus Prescription

• Whether the easement was acquired by title (or its equivalent) as provided by Article 541, or by prescription as argued by the respondents.
• The effect of the continuous use of the windows and the lack of objection by either the respondents or Maria Encarnacion Florentino when the properties were divided.

Impact of the Date of Maria Florentino’s Death

• Whether the evidence supports the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Maria Florentino died in 1892 or validates the petitioner’s contention that she died in 1885.
• The consequential effect on which legal regime should apply—the Civil Code (post-1889) or the Law of the Partidas (pre-Civil Code).

The Rights of an Innocent Purchaser

• Whether petitioner Amor, as an innocent purchaser for value, is bound by the pre-existing easement despite his claim of lack of knowledge regarding the nature of the window arrangement.

Public Policy and Equity Considerations

• Whether it is just and equitable to enforce the easement against the petitioner in light of the long-established use of the windows and the mutual understanding between the original owner and her heirs.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)