FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellee Emilio Purugganan is the owner
of a piece of a residential lot subdivided as Lot 1 and Lot 2, adjacent to and
bounded on the North by the lot of defendant-appellant Felisa Paredes. The lots
of Purugganan are subject to an easement of drainage in favor of Paredes fully
quoted in the Decree of Registration.
In or about the month of March 1951, the
defendants-appellants constructed a house on their lot adjacent to Lots 1 and 2
of plaintiff-appellee in such a manner that the southern side of their house is
exactly on the brick wall, the southern side of which is the demarcation line
between the plaintiff-appellee and the defendants-appellants, demolishing said
brick wall and built thereon the southern wall of their house with 3 windows.
The house constructed by the defendants-appellants is 2-½ meters longer than
the length of roofing allowed in the abovequoted Decree of Registration, and
has an outer roofing (eaves) of 1.20 meters, protruding over the property of
the plaintiff-appellee which is .20 meters wider than that allowed in the same
Decree of Registration, and the rain water from the GI roofing falls about 3
meters inside Lots 1 and 2 of the plaintiff-appellee. The defendants-appellants
also placed 3 windows each on the first and second floors of their house on the
side facing Lots 1 and 2 of plaintiff-appellee. From the time the
defendants-appellants started to construct their house, the plaintiff-appellee
has repeatedly and continuously been demanding from the defendants-appellants
that the construction of their house be in accordance with the easement, but
the defendants-appellants refused to observe the easement and to close their
windows. They also prohibited the plaintiff-appellee from constructing a party
wall between points 1 and 2 of Lot 2 and between points 2 and 3 and 4 of Lot 1.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not an easement of drainage exist
in favour of plaintiff-appellee; and (2) Whether or not defendants-appellants
had acquired easement of light and view by prescription through user since time
immemorial.
DECISION:
The plaintiff-appellee is entitled to an easement
of drainage as annotated on the Certificate of Title. Thus defendant-appellant
should reconstruct its roofs and eaves of their house such that the falling
water shall not fall on curve into the lots of the plaintiff beyond one meter
from the boundary line and by 8-½ meters in length and to remove the said
protruding eaves and roof.
No easement of light and view was acquired by
defendant-appellants by prescription. Indeed if defendants-appellants had acquired
the said easement of light and view by prescription through user since time
immemorial why did they not intervene in the registration proceedings for the
inclusion of said easement in the Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee as
an encumbrance thereon, in the same manner that the easement of drainage was
annotated in the Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee? The easement of
drainage was inscribed in the Certificate of Title of plaintiff-appellee in
their favor by virtue of an amicable settlement resulting from their opposition
to the registration of plaintiff-appellee's property. In this light, their
defense of user "since time immemorial" becomes flimsy and is merely
being used to simulate a factual issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment