Easement of Light and View
Easement of Light and View
Easement of Light and View
Legal easements
=are ones imposed by law, and which have, for their object, either public use or
interest of private persons, as opposed to
voluntary easements
=that are established by the agreements of the parties.
2. a negative easement
=is that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something
which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
negative easements,
=the prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the owner of the
dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the
owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without
the easement.
As a general rule:
an easement of light and view is a positive one
= if the window or opening is situated in a party wall,
it is a negative one
=if the window or opening is thru one’s own wall,
i.e., thru a wall of the dominant estate.
However, “[e]ven if the window is on one’s own wall, still the easement would be
positive if the window is on a balcony or projection extending over into the
adjoining land.”
Article 624 – The Existence of an Apparent Sign of Easement between Two Estates
formerly owned by a Single Owner considered a Title to Easement of Light and View
While it is a general rule that a window or opening situated on the wall of the
dominant estate involves a negative easement, and, thus, may only be acquired by
prescription, tacked from the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of
the servient estate, it is not true that all windows or openings situated on the
wall of the dominant estate may only be acquired through prescription. Aside from
prescription, easements may likewise be acquired through title. The term “title”
does not necessarily mean a document. Instead, it refers to a juridical act or law
sufficient to create the encumbrance. One such legal proviso which grants title to
an easement is found in Article 624 of the Civil Code. Article 624 of the Civil
Code reads:
x x x. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either
of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively
and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the
contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the
sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This provision
shall also apply’ in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or more
persons.
In Amor v. Florentino, the Court first explained that easements may be acquired
either through title or prescription and enumerated the different acts by which an
easement may be acquired by virtue of title, namely:
( 1) a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate;
(2) a final judgment; and
(3) an apparent sign between two estates, established by the owner of both,
referring to Article 541 (now Article 624) of the Civil Code
Citing decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain, the Court explained that “under
article 541 [now Article 624] of the Civil Code, the visible and permanent sign of
an easement ‘is the title that characterizes its existence’
The Court explained that the moment of the constitution of the easement of light
and view, together with that of altius non tollendi, was the time of the transfer
of the other property adjacent to the lot where the windows were located, which, in
that case, was the death of the original owner of both properties:
Sound juridical thinking rejects such an idea because, properly speaking, the
easement is not created till the division of the property, inasmuch as a predial or
real easement is one of the rights in another’s property, or Jura in re aliena and
nobody can have an easement over his own property, nemini sua res servit. In the
instant case, therefore, when the original owner, Maria Florentino, opened the
windows which received light and air from another lot belonging to her, she was
merely exercising her right of dominion. Consequently, the moment of the
constitution of the easement of light and view, together with that of altius non
tollendi, was the time of the death of the original owner of both properties.
The conclusion of the CA, Special 18th Division that Article 624 applies only when
the (future) servient estate has an improvement thereon at the time of the transfer
of the ownership of either or both of the estates finds no textual support.
What the law merely states is that there must be two estates that were once owned
by one owner, regardless of the existence of improvements in the (future) servient
estate.
What law requires is that, at the time the ownership of the estates is divided,
there must be an apparent sign of easement that exists, such as a window, door, or
other opening, in the dominant estate. As exhaustively explained by recognized
Civil Law Commentator, former CA Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, the existence of an
easement of light and view under Article 624 is established as long as
( 1) there exists an apparent sign of servitude between two estates;
(2) the sign of the easement must be established by the owner of both tenements;
(3) either or both of the estates are alienated by the owner; and
(4) at the time of the alienation nothing is stated in the document of alienation
contrary to the easement nor is the sign of the easement removed before the
execution of the document:
***It must be stressed that the presence of a minor factual difference does not
preclude the application of judicial precedent. It must be explained how the
factual difference in a case makes the doctrine established in the decided case
inapplicable therein.