Case Digest (G.R. No. 228334)
Facts:
In Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia v. Loreta T. Santos, Winston S. Santos and Conchita Tan (G.R. No. 228334, decided September 21, 2020), the spouses Garcia (petitioners) are registered owners of Lot 2, Block 1, San Jose Street, Southville Subdivision, Molo, Iloilo City, covered by TCT No. T-130666, with a one‐storey house erected before their purchase in October 1998 from the spouses Santos. The adjacent Lot 1, covered by TCT No. T-114137 and retained by the spouses Santos, was idle until January 24, 2009 when they commenced construction of a two‐storey house. The Garcias alleged that this new building obstructed their windows, depriving their house of light, air, and view, violated lateral‐support rights by excavations within three meters of the common boundary, and breached intermediate‐distance rules. On February 18, 2009, they filed a complaint for easements of light, air and view, lateral support, intermediate distances, and damages with prayer for writs of preliminary iCase Digest (G.R. No. 228334)
Facts:
- Parties and Properties
- Petitioners Spouses Tedy and Pilar Garcia (Sps. Garcia) are registered owners of Lot 2, Blk. 1, San Jose Street, Southville Subdivision, Molo, Iloilo City (subject property), covered by TCT No. T-130666, with a one-storey house constructed prior to purchase in October 1998.
- Respondents Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos (Sps. Santos) own adjoining Lot 1, covered by TCT No. T-114137. Lot 1 was vacant until January 24, 2009, when Sps. Santos began building a two-storey house.
- Allegations and Reliefs Sought
- Sps. Garcia alleged the new structure obstructed their right to light, air, and view; was built less than three meters from the boundary; and excavation deprived lateral support to their fence. They prayed for declaration of easements of light, air, view, lateral support, and intermediate distances, damages, and injunctive relief.
- On February 19, 2009, RTC Branch 31 granted a TRO enjoining further construction on Lot 1; lifted on March 20, 2009.
- Procedural History
- Respondents denied Tan’s involvement, challenged easement claims, and filed a demurrer to evidence, denied by the RTC (April 28, 2011). CA Twentieth Division denied the resulting Rule 65 petition (May 20, 2013; became final March 31, 2016).
- RTC dismissed the Complaint (May 28, 2015). CA Special Eighteenth Division affirmed (June 30, 2016; resolution Oct. 5, 2016). Petitioners filed the present Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the doctrine of law of the case applies based on the CA Twentieth Division’s final and executory decision on the demurrer to evidence.
- Whether Sps. Garcia acquired an easement of light and view over Lot 1.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)