Facts:
Maximo Cortes v. Jose Palanca Yu‑Tibo, G.R. No. 911, March 12, 1903, the Supreme Court, Mapa, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, and Ladd, JJ., concur; Torres, J., did not sit).The plaintiff and appellant, Maximo Cortes, sued to enjoin the defendant and appellee, Jose Palanca Yu‑Tibo (a tenant of the adjacent house), from continuing construction work that the plaintiff alleged obstructed windows in house No. 65 Calle Rosario, a house owned by the plaintiff's wife. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction during the proceedings but, upon final judgment, dissolved that injunction and taxed costs against Cortes; Cortes assigned error and appealed.
Facts admitted at trial: the windows of No. 65 have existed since 1843; they open upon the neighboring lot No. 63; the defendant (tenant of No. 63) had begun work raising the roof such that one‑half of one window of No. 65 was covered, materially reducing its light and air. The court below found these facts and specifically found that Cortes had not proved he had, by any formal act, prohibited the owner of No. 63 from making improvements prior to the complaint.
Cortes' theory was that continuous, uninterrupted use of the windows since 1843 had created by prescription an easement of light (a servitude) in favor of No. 65; he claimed the prescriptive period should run from the time the windows were used. The defendant argued the easement is negative and the prescriptive period can only run from a formal act of prohibition by the dominant owner against the servient owner's lawful use. The trial court held the easement was negative and Cortes appealed.
After the Court's decision the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the easement of light arising from windows opened in the owner's own wall a positive or a negative easement?
- Can such an easement be acquired by prescription by continuous use from the time the windows were opened, or does the prescriptive period begin only from a formal act of prohibition by the dominant owner?
- Does the watershed (shed) above the window constitute a projection within article 582 of the Civil Code so as to affect the prescriptive or substantive rights claimed?
- Was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States properly available under §10 of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)