Title
Amor vs. Florentino
Case
G.R. No. 48384
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1943
Maria Florentino's heirs claimed an easement of light and view over a lot sold to Amor, upheld by courts due to visible windows and long-standing use, binding Amor despite his purchase.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 48384)

Petitioner’s Claim and Trial Outcome

Petitioner appealed the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The trial court had declared an easement of light and view in favor of respondents’ house, ordered the petitioner to remove obstructions to respondents’ windows within 30 days, to refrain from building within three meters of the boundary, and to pay P200 in damages. The petitioner had purchased from Maria Encarnacion Florentino, who had been devised the camarin and lot; respondents held the house and lot by devise from the same original owner.

Core Factual Background

Originally a single owner, Maria Florentino, possessed both the house (with four windows on the north side) and the camarin across the intervening lot. The testatrix died; one heir received the house and heirs received the camarin. The camarin lot was sold on July 14, 1911 to petitioner. Petitioner demolished the old camarin and began constructing a two-story house in January 1938. Respondents filed suit on March 1, 1938 to prevent obstruction of light and view and to enjoin construction above the prior height; preliminary injunction was denied because construction was nearly complete.

Key Dates Relevant to Legal Characterization

Relevant historical dates in the record include: devise executed September 6, 1885; petitioner’s purchase July 14, 1911; petitioner’s reconstruction January–March 1938; respondents’ suit filed March 1, 1938. A dispositive factual question was the date of death of the original owner (Maria Florentino): the Court of Appeals found it to be 1892; petitioner later offered a burial certificate and gravestone photograph indicating death in 1885.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable substantive law as applied by the majority: the Civil Code (provisions concerning easements, especially Article 541). Because the decision date is prior to 1990, the applicable constitutional frame for this decision is the 1935 Philippine Constitution (the Court’s reasoning relies on civil-law provisions and pre-Civil Code Spanish jurisprudence where relevant).

Governing Civil-Code Provision: Article 541 (Text and Principle)

Article 541 provides that an apparent sign of an easement between two estates, established by the owner of both, shall be considered, upon alienation of one estate, as a title causing the easement to continue actively and passively unless the contrary is expressed at the time of separation or the sign is destroyed before alienation. The majority treated the existing, visible windows as the “apparent sign” contemplated by Article 541.

Modes of Acquiring Easements (As Applied)

The Court summarized modes of constituting and acquiring easements under the Civil Code: by law or by will (Article 536); by title and by prescription (Article 537); and by acts equating to title identified in Articles 540–541 — including final judgment, deed of recognition, and the apparent sign between two estates (Article 541). Under Article 534 easements are inseparable from the estate they burden or benefit.

Timing and Moment of Constitution Under Article 541

The majority held that an easement in the juridical sense cannot exist while a single owner holds both tenements; the easement is properly constituted at the moment of division of ownership. Accordingly, the majority reasoned the easement in question arose on the death of the original owner when the properties were separated among devisees, provided that at that time nothing contrary was expressed and the visible sign (windows) remained.

Distinction from Cortes v. Yu-Tibo (1903)

The Court distinguished Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, which addressed acquisition of an easement of light by prescription where the owner of the dominant estate must make a formal prohibition to trigger prescription for a negative easement. The present case was distinguished because Article 541 creates title by the apparent sign itself (hence a title-based acquisition rather than by prescription), and because here there was a single original owner who imposed the condition implicitly, rather than two separate owners who merely tolerated openings.

Application of Article 541 to the Facts (Majority Holding)

Relying on the Court of Appeals’ finding that Maria Florentino died in 1892 (a factual finding the Supreme Court majority declined to disturb), the majority applied Article 541 and concluded that the visible windows constituted the apparent sign that operated as title to the easement. Because Maria Encarnacion Florentino (the devisee of the camarin) did not object or remove the sign, the burden of the easement continued upon alienation, binding petitioner as successor in title.

Alternative Reasoning If Death Occurred Before Civil Code (Pre-Code Law)

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s contention that the testatrix died in 1885 and therefore the Partidas (pre-Civil Code Spanish law) would govern. The majority held that even under the Partidas the same principle (an apparent sign creating an easement upon division) was recognized in Spanish jurisprudence, and that Spanish Supreme Court decisions had filled gaps in the Partidas by drawing on Roman law and modern codes. Thus, the majority concluded the result would be the same even if the Partidas applied.

Prescription and Complementary Acquisition

The majority further concluded the easement had been acquired by prescription in addition to the title-equivalent effect of Article 541. They reasoned that continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by prescription (Article 537) and that the relevant prescriptive periods under pre-Code or Code provisions had elapsed by the time respondents sued in 1938.

Purchaser’s Duty and Innocent Purchaser Argument

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of being an innocent purchaser for value. The windows were visible on purchase and the deed acknowledged that the vendor had inherited the property from Maria Florentino; under Article 541 jurisprudence and Spanish precedents a purchaser of land subject to apparent easements is charged with constructive knowledge and cannot claim third-party rights against such burdens.

Justice, Public Policy, and Practical Considerations

The majority emphasized equitable considerations: an heir who accepts a devise that was, in practice, subject to a service instituted by the former single owner cannot repudiate that tacitly assumed burden; easements reflect reasonable limitations on absolute ownership and serve communal utility, particularly in closely built environments. The petitioner, having continued construction after litigation began and having failed to inquire into visible signs, was not entitled to relief.

Final Disposition (Majority)

The Supreme Court majority affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment: an easement of light and view (and the attendant altius non tollendi) existed in favor of respondents, petitioner was not an innocent purchaser, and costs were imposed on petitioner.

Dissent (Justice Ozaeta) — Factual and Legal Objections

Justice Ozaeta dissented. He argued the Court rested on an unsupported and conjectural factual finding that Maria Florentino died in 1892. Ozaeta maintained that reliable documentary evidence (a burial record and gravestone inscription) established death in 1885, which meant pre-Civil Code law (Partidas) should control. He criticized the majority for treating the 1892 inference as binding and for disallowing su

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms