Case Digest (G.R. No. 206393)
Facts:
Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia v. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita Tan, G.R. No. 228334, September 21, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Tedy and Pilar Garcia (the Sps. Garcia) sued respondents Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos (the Sps. Santos) and Conchita Tan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 31 by filing a Complaint on February 18, 2009 (Civil Case No. 09-30023) for easements of light, air and view, lateral support and intermediate distances, damages, and for injunctive relief. The Garcias alleged they purchased Lot 2 (subject property) with a one-storey house (covered by TCT No. T-130666) from the Sps. Santos in October 1998; at purchase the adjoining Lot 1 (TCT No. T-114137) remained idle. In January 2009 the Sps. Santos began constructing a two-storey house on Lot 1 which the Garcias contend obstructed their windows and deprived them of light, air and view and encroached within three meters of the boundary, and that excavations deprived lateral support to their fence. The Garcias sought a declaration of an easement of light and view, removal or modification of the obstructing structure, damages and injunctive relief. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on February 19, 2009, which was lifted on March 20, 2009.
In their Amended Answer with Counterclaim (Feb. 27, 2009) the respondents denied Tan’s involvement and contended the Garcias failed to show acquisition of an easement by title or prescription and that excavations did not deprive lateral or subjacent support. At trial the Garcias presented evidence and, upon their resting, the Sps. Santos filed a demurrer to evidence which the RTC denied by Order dated April 28, 2011. The Sps. Santos filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 06176) challenging the denial; the CA, Twentieth Division denied the certiorari petition in a Decision dated May 20, 2013 (motion for reconsideration denied Feb. 22, 2016), and that decision became final and executory on March 31, 2016.
Trial continued; the RTC rendered judgment on May 28, 2015 dismissing the Complaint. The Garcias appealed to the CA (Special 18th Division), docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 05701. The CA, Special 18th Division affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated June 30, 2016; its denial of the Garcias’ motion for reconsideration was embodied in an Octobe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of the law of the case apply in view of the Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division’s Decision dated May 20, 2013 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 06176?
- Did the petitioners Spouses Garcia acquire an easement of light and view over Lot 1 owned by th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)