Case Digest (G.R. No. 46705)
Facts:
Justin A y Lorenza Santos v. Mercedes P. Viuda de Rufino et al., G.R. No. 46705, June 22, 1940, the Supreme Court En Banc, Imperial, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiffs-appellants, Justin A y Lorenza Santos (demandantes y apelantes), sued the defendants-appellees, Mercedes P. Viuda de Rufino et al. (demandados y apelados), in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the defendants to permanently close windows they had opened in the side of their building that adjoins the plaintiffs' property. After hearing the parties, the trial court dismissed the complaint and taxed costs against the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs appealed the judgment.
Both parties owned contiguous buildings on Avenida Rizal, Manila. The plaintiffs' property was a two-storey house of strong materials with a galvanized iron roof. The defendants' property was an eight-storey concrete building with a terrace, used as a cinema, warehouses and a hotel. Along the common boundary the two buildings were built on the lot line. In the defendants' lateral wall facing the plaintiffs' lot the defendants constructed a vertical shaft divided into four sections by three reinforced-concrete beams, and in each section there were three internal windows: a central window with a straight (frontal) view (vista recta) and two lateral windows with oblique (side) views (vistas oblicuas). The central windows measured 2.07 metres from the dividing line; the lateral oblique windows measured 1.30 metres from that line. There were no balconies or projecting overhangs.
The plaintiffs argued that the windows contravened Articles 582 and 583 of the Civil Code, which, in their reading, require 2 metres for vistas rectas and 60 centimetres for vistas oblicuas, and that distances must be measured from the exterior line of the wall rather than from the window openings. The trial court found the facts as above and held that, under Articles 582 and 583 and the accepted interpretation in the Manresa commentary, where there are no overhangs the distances are to be measured from the window openings (huecos); ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in dismissing the plaintiffs' action?
- Do the windows opened by the defendants violate Articles 582 and 583 of the Civil Code, and, relatedly, from what point must the legally required distanc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)