Case #17. A Wall Separating Two Adjoining Buildings, Built On The Land On Which One of These

Case #17.
A wall separating two adjoining buildings, built on the land on which one of these
buildings stands, is not a party wall when there is a drain along its top to carry away the water
from the roof and eaves of the building belonging to the owner of the land on which the wall is
erected.
LAO vs. THE HEIRS OF LORENZA ALBURO

G.R. No. 10372. December 24, 1915
TORRES, J.
FACTS:
Counsel for the petitioners filed a written application in the Court of Land
Registration for the registration of four parcels of land, together with the buildings
thereon, of which they claimed to be the absolute owners.
After due service of notice, counsel for the administrator of the estate of the
deceased Lorenza Alburo filed in court a written objection, alleging that in the part of
the application relative to the second parcel of the plan No. 1, a stone wall shown in that
plan to be northeast of the said parcel had been improperly included; that this wall had
belonged to the said Lorenza Alburo, for it had existed since March 8, 1881; that the
principal timbers of the building that had belonged to the said deceased had rested on it
for more than thirty-five years, and the latter's successors had been and were now in the
quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession of the said wall.
In the judgment appealed from it is held that the applicants, Domingo Lao and
Albina de los Santos, conclusively and satisfactorily proved that they were, and had
been for about forty years, the lawful owners and possessors of the four properties
sought to be registered; wherefore the court decreed the registration thereof in their
names, but ordered that record be made in the decree that the wall marked on the plan
of the parcel No. 2 as a stone wall was a party wall.
ISSUE:
WON the stone wall is a party wall.
HELD:
NO. Article 572 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of party walls is
presumed, unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary in the dividing
walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point of elevation.
Article 573 of the Civil Code also declares that it shall be understood that there
are exterior signs which conflict with the easement of party wall, when, among other
circumstances, the entire wall is built on one of the lots and not on the line dividing the
two adjoining parcels; when the dividing wall, being constructed of stone and cement,
has stones projecting at intervals from the surface on one side only and not on the other;
and when it supports joists, beams, floors, and the roof timbers of one of the houses but
not of the adjoining building.
The record shows it to have been duly proven that the enclosing wall of Lot No.
2 of the plan Exhibit A, belonging to the applicants, much higher than the adjoining
building of the objectors; that along the top of the said wall there is a gutter which
catches the rain water from the eaves of the roof of the applicants' building and carries
it thence to Calle Juan Luna through an iron pipe fastened to the said wall; that one-half
of the top of the said wall is covered by the roof of the applicants' building; that the
supports of the said wall project toward the side of the applicants' land and that none of
the buttresses are on the side of the objectors' lot; that the stones of the wall in dispute
are bound or inset in the rear enclosing wall of the applicants' property in such wise
that the two walls that inclose the lot form but a single construction, the exterior signs
of which show that the wall in question is not a party wall, but that it forms a part of the
applicants' building and belongs to them.
These exterior signs contrary to the existence of a party-wall easement cannot be

offset by the circumstance that the disputed wall projects into Calle Juan Luna 74
centimeters farther than the applicants' building, and neither can the fact that the face of
this projecting wall is on the same street line as the objectors' building, for the reason
that, in view of the said signs contrary to the existence of the easement of party wall, the
projection of the wall does not prove that it was a party wall belonging in common to
the applicants and the objectors and that the latter shared in the ownership thereof.
The objectors have not proved that a part or one-half of the wall in litigation was
erected on the land that belonged to the deceased Lorenza Alburo. The fact that the
owners of the objectors' property may have surreptitiously inserted some of the timbers
or joists of their building in the wall belonging to the applicants is not enough to
convert this latter into a party wall, when there are do many exterior signs to indicate
the exclusive ownership, of the wall and to conflict with the existence of the easement
that the objectors endeavor to establish. The wall in litigation is fully proven by the
record to belong exclusively to the applicants.
All of the applicants' properties, including the wall in question, should therefore
be registered.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed, but the decree
of registration of the property designated as Lot No. 2 shall include the disputed wall as
belonging exclusively to the applicants, and that part of the judgment appealed form in
which it was held that the said wall is a party wall is hereby reversed; without special
finding as to costs. So ordered.

Case #17. A Wall Separating Two Adjoining Buildings, Built On The Land On Which One of These

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #17. A Wall Separating Two Adjoining Buildings, Built On The Land On Which One of These

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #17. A Wall Separating Two Adjoining Buildings, Built On The Land On Which One of These

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #17.

LAO vs. THE HEIRS OF LORENZA ALBURO

WON the stone wall is a party wall.

These exterior signs contrary to the existence of a party-wall easement cannot be

You might also like