You are on page 1of 4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 6076

TodayisFriday,June27,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.6076December29,1911
SEVERINAandFLORACHOCO,plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
ISIDROSANTAMARIA,defendantappellant.
ManuelTorres,forplaintiffs.
LeodegarioAzarraga,fordefendant.

MAPA,J.:
Thejudgmentrenderedinthiscaseinfirstinstanceisinpartasfollows:
Fromtheevidencepresentedatthetrial,Ifindthatthedefendantsisinpossessionofaparceloflandon
the corner of Calles Pescadores and P. Rada, in the district of Tondo, city of Manila, and that he was
erected a house thereon flush with the boundary line of the adjacent property that the plaintiffs are the
owners of the land on both sides of the defendant's house, erected as stated, both on Calle Pescadores
andCalleP.Radathatthedefendantinthebuildingofhishousehasmadeseveralopeningsandwindows
in the walls of the house on both sides overlooking then property of the plaintiff that at the time the
defendant was building his house, and the windows and the openings were being made, the plaintiffs
protested,andlateronandintheyear1905madewrittenprotestanddemandonthedefendant,andthe
defendant received the written protest and referred it to his counsel, who, from the evidence, appears to
have suggested an amicable and adjustment of the matter, but the adjustment was not made, and this
actionwasbrought.
Itislikewiseestablishedthattheentrancetothedefendant'shouseisinCallePescadores,andtakingitas
thefrontofhishousehehasputalargewindowinitsupperstory,onthebalconyofsaidhouse,marked1
onExhibitA,overlookingCalleP.Radaandthatthiswindowanditsbalconydonotfacedirectlytowardthe
houseoftheplaintiffs.
Therehavealsobeenconstructedtwowindowsintherearwallofthehouseofthedefendant,inthefirst
story of the house, which are marked 8 and 9 on exhibit A, and these windows are each 50 by 80
centimeters,andareplacedimmediatelyundertheceilingofthefirststory,andeachofthesewindowsis
equallydividedintofourpanes.
Ontherighthandsideofthehouse,enteringfromCallePescadores,thereisawindoworopeninginthe
wallofthehouseinthesecondstory,whichisabout25by35centimeters,andislocatedalittlemorethan
halfwayfromtheflooroftheceilingofthesecondstoryandthisissubdividedintosmallerpanesandon
the same side there are three windows which are marked 2, 3, and 4 on Exhibit A, located immediately
undertheceilingofthefirststory,andeachofthethreeis25by25centimeters.
Therearetwootherwindowsonthesamesidelocatedimmediatelyundertheceiling,whicharemarkedas
5and6onExhibitAandalsoonExhibitC,andoneofthesewindowsisabout35by67centimeters,and
theotherabout75by90centimeters.
Italsoappearsthatthereiswirescreeningoveralltheseopeningsorwindows.

1awphil.net

Thelawprovidesthattheownerofawallwhichisnotapartywall,adjoininganother'sestate,maymakein
itwindowsoropeningstoadmitlightattheheightoftheceilingjoist,orimmediatelyundertheceiling,thirty
centimeterssquare,withanirongateembeddedinthewallandawirescreen.
Inthiscasethewindowsareinawallnotapartywalladjoiningtheplaintiff'sestate,andthewindowmarked
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1911/dec1911/gr_6076_1911.html

1/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 6076

2,3,and4,asappearsonExhibitA,arelessthanthirtycentimeterssquareandhaveawirescreen,but
theredoesnotappeartobetheirongateembeddedinthewall.
The windows marked 5 and 6, as indicated in Exhibit A, have a wire screen but are more than thirty
centimeterssquare,andhavetheirongrateembeddedinthewall.
Thewindowmarked7onExhibitAhasawirescreen,butismorethan30centimeterssquareandhasnot
theirongrateembeddedonthewall.
Thewindows8and9,asindicatedonExhibitA,haveawirescreenbutnoirongrateembeddedinthewall,
andareofagreaterdimensionthanthirtycentimetersquare.
ThewindowmarkedOneonExhibitAislocatedinabalconywhichoverlooksthestreet,whilethepremises
oftheplaintiffmaybeseenfromit,itisnotadjoiningtheirestate.
Thecourtfindsthattheplaintiffsareentitledtoadecreeforclosingallthewindowsoropeningsinthewalls
ofthedefendant'shouse,ashereinbeforedescribed,whichdirectlyoverlookthepremisesoftheplaintiffs,
orthatinsomeotherwaytheprovisionsofthelawbecompliedwithsothattheymayremainopen.
Alltheseopeningsandwindowscanbemadetocomplywiththelaw,withtheexceptionofthatmarked7,
whichisnotimmediatelyundertheceiling(techo).
Let judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Severina and Flora Choco, and against the defendant,
Isidro Santamaria, forever prohibiting the opening of the window marked No. 7, as hereinbefore stated,
whichmustbeclosed,andforeverprohibitingtheopeningofthewindowsandopeningsmarked,asherein
beforestated,2,3,4,5,6,8,and9,whichmustbeclosedormadetoconformtotherequirementsoflaw
withregardtodimensionsandanirongrateembeddedinthewall,withthecostsoftheaction.
Theplaintiffsappealedfromthatjudgmentandallegeintheirappealinthisinstance:

1awphil.net

1.Thatthelowercourterredbynotorderinginhisjudgmentthefinalandperpetualclosingofthelargewindow
openedinthebalconyofthebackpartoftheappellee'shouseandmarkedNo.1inthephotographicExhibitsA
andD,onthegroundthatthesaidwindowisinthebalconywhichoverlooksCallePadreRadaandthat,though
theappellant'slotcanbeseenthroughthewindow,itisnotcontiguoustothelatter'sproperty.
2.Thatthetrialcourtalsoerredinorderinginhisjudgmentthattheopeningsandwindows,Nos.2,3,4,5,6,8,
and9,mightcontinueopeniftheywerefixedsoastocomplywiththerequirementsofthelawasregardstheir
dimensionsandtheplacingofirongratesembeddedinthewall.
3.Thatthelowercourtalsoerredindenyingtheappellant'spetitionforrehearing.
Itappearsobvioustous,fromtheevidence,thatthewindowNo.1,referredtointhefirstassignmentoferrors,is
next appellants' lot. To judge from the photographic views, Exhibits A and D, it opens on the boundary line
betweenthesaidlotandthattheappelleeandissituatedperpendicularlyaboveapartofthewallthatbelongsto
the appellants. This opinion is corroborated by the testimony of the defendant's witness who took the said
photographs,insofarashesaidthat"apartofthewindowinquestionisinfrontoftheplaintiffs'property,anda
person approaching the window may clearly see the said lot." And certainly if it is in front of this lot, it is
unquestionablethatitdirectlyoverlooksthesamebuteventhoughitdidnotandonlyasideorobliqueviewof
thelotcouldbeobtainedfromit,itcouldnotbekeptopen,sincebetweenitandtheplaintiffs'propertytheredoes
not intervene the distance required by law that of two meters in the first case, and 60 centimeters in the
second.Inreality,thereisnodistanceatallbetweenthesaidwindowandtheplaintiffs'lot,because,aswehave
said,thiswindowisperpendiculartotheboundarylineofthesaidlottherefore,itsopeningisamanifestviolation
oftheprovisionsofarticle582oftheCivilCodewhichreadsasfollows:
Windowswithdirectviews,orbalconiesoranysimilaropeningsprojectingovertheestateoftheneighbor,
cannotbemadeifthereisnotadistanceof,atleast,2metersbetweenthewallinwhichtheyarebuiltand
saidestate.
Neither can side nor oblique views be opened over said property, unless there is a distance of 60
centimeters.
Becauseofthelackofthedistancerequiredbylaw,thewindowinquestionmustbeclosed,andconsequentlythe
judgmentappealedfromshouldbemodifiedinthissense,asregardsthiswindow.
With respect to the second assignment of error, the question raised by the appellants concerns the proper
interpretationofarticle581oftheCivilCodewhichdescribesasfollows:
itcalf

The owner of the wall which is not a partywall, adjoining anothers estate, may make in it windows or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1911/dec1911/gr_6076_1911.html

2/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 6076

openingstoadmitlight,attheheightoftheceilingjoistsorimmediatelyundertheceiling,ofthedimentions
of30centimeterssquareand,inanycase,withanirongrateembeddedinthewallandawirescreen.
The windows mentioned in this part of the appeal are those indicated by Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, in the
defendant'sExhibitA.Theyareallsituatedimmediatelyundertheceilingofthefirstdoorandareprovidedwith
wire screens some of them measure more and other less than 30 centimeters square and none of them have
irongratesembeddedinthewall.Owingtothislastcircumstance,noneofthemfullycomplywiththeconditions
requiredbythelawmoreover,thosenumbered5,6,8,and9,havetheadditionaldefectofbeinggreaterthan30
centimeters square. The trial judge therefore ordered, in the judgment, that all the aforementioned windows be
closed or that they be made to conform to the law with respect to their dimentions and the placing of the iron
grates embedded in the wall. The appellants maintain that these windows should have been ordered closed
absolutelyandfinally,and,consequently,thattheoptionallowedthedefendanttokeepthemopen,providedthat
hebroughtthemwithinthetermsofthelaw,incontrarytothesameand,therefore,illegal.
Itisallegedasagroundforsuchavermentthatnoneoftheceilingjoist,whichisthefirstconditionrequiredby
law.
We understand by ceiling joist say the appellants in a building composed of any given number of
stories,thelongpiecestowhicharenailedtheboardsthatformtheceilingofthelaststoryofthebuilding,
counting the stories from below and this interpretation which we give to the words ceiling joists must be
that most in harmony with the spirit of article 581 of the code, the subject of our examination, since
immediatelyaftertheminthesamearticle,inexplanation,arefoundthewordsor immediately under "los
techos,"inordertoindicate,withouttheleastdoubt,thesoleplaceorheightwhereopeningsorwindows
maybemadeinconformitywithinthelaw.Itisneedlesstosaythatabuilding,thoughcomposedofseveral
stories,canhavebutonetecho....
Thislastassertionisincorrect.Bytechoisunderstoodthatpartofaconstructionwhichcoverstheroomsunderit
andcertainlyformsoneoftheessentialpartsofeverystory.Astoryiscomposedofearth,paymentandceiling,
thelatter,thatis,theceiling,beingthatpartofthestorythatthevisibletotheobserversituatedbelowintheroom
covered by it. (HispanoAmerican Encyclopedic Dictionary, by Montaner and Simon.) Consequently, every story
hasaceiling,andnot,astheappellantsmaintain,theupperonealone.
Nor is their definition exact of the word joists, as it is employed in article 581 of the Code. According to the
dictionaryoftheSpanishAcademy,theseare,inarchitecture,understoodtobeakindofbeamlaidhorizontally
and serving in buildings to support others of for bracing and connecting the parts of the structure. Mucius
ScaevolasaysinhisCivilCode,volume10,page448:
The horizontal timbers that are placed upon the tops of the uprights, that is, what are commonly called
beams, intended to serve for connection and main support of the timbers of the different floors that
separatethestoriesofthebuilding,arecalledjoists.
Accordingtothesedefinitionseachfloornecessarilyhasjoists,thatis,beams,since,inthelastanalysistheyare
whatsupportandsecurethestructureofthestoryimmediatelyabovethereforeitisnottruethattheremaybe
joistsonlyinthetopstory,astheappellantsclaimbysayingthattheyunderstandtobesuchthelongtimbersto
whicharefastenedtheboardsoftheceilingatthetopstoryofthebuilding.Onthecontrary,carefullyconsidered,
itispreciselythetopstorythatdoesnotneedjoists,sinceitdoesnothavetosupportanyotherhigherportionof
thebuilding.Ithasonlytosupporttheweightoftheroof,whichundoubtedlymuchlessthanthatofawholestory.
Sothat,accordingtoMuciusScaevola(workcited,vol.10,p.487),itcannotbesaidthatthetopstoryhasjoists.
Andbecauseitcertainlydoesnothavethem,isreasonwhythecodeinsaidarticle581employsthephraseor
immediatelyunder"lostechos"inreferringtothetopstory.
Theauthor'swordsinexpoundingthistheoryinhiscommentaryonarticle581oftheCivilCodeareasfollows:
We said elsewhere that these (the joists) were horizontal timbers that rest upon the tops of the uprights
they form, then, the upper limit of the different stories of a house and therefore, in referring to the top
story,whichcannotbesaidtohavejoists,article581makesuseofthephraseorimmediatelyunder"los
techos."
Thisdoesnotmeanthattheitalicizedphrasereferssolelyandexclusivelytothetopstory,sincelowerstoriesalso
havetechos,asabovesetforth.Inouropinionwhattheauthorcitedmeansisthatinspeakingofthetopstory,
whichhasnojoists,thewordsorarticle581ofthecode,attheheightoftheceilingjoists,failtoapply,thephase
orimmediatelyunder"lostechos"alonebeingtheretoapplicable,indistinctionfromthelowerstories,withregard
to which both phrases are applicable as they have at the same time joists and techo. In referring to the lower
storieseitherphrasemay,inconnectionwiththeother,determinetheplace,whichsurelycanbemorethanone,
where it is permissible to open the windows called regulation windows, whenever in them the joists are actually
joinedtoorplacednexttothetechowhichformsthetopofeachofsaidstories.Bothphrasesthereforeexpress
thesameideawithreferencetothelowerstories.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1911/dec1911/gr_6076_1911.html

3/4

6/27/2014

G.R. No. 6076

Asidefromwhathasbeensaidhere,theobjectofthelawinauthorizingtheopeningofthewindowsinquestionin
allthestoriesofabuilding,withoutanyexception,isclear.Theirpurposeis,asarticle581itselfsays,tofurnish
lighttotherooms,anditisevidentataglancethattheroomsofthelowerstorieshaveasmuchneedforlightas
thoseofthetopstory.Nogoodreasonexistsforhavingonestoryinbetterconditionthananother,whicheverit
maybe,connectionwiththisprovisionoflaw.
The defendant is ordered to close finally and forever the window marked No. 1 in Exhibit A, the judgment
appealedfrominsofarasitreferstosaidwindowbeingthusmodified,butaffirmedinallotherrespectswithout
specialfindingastocostsinthisinstance.
Arellano,C.J.,JohnsonandCarson,JJ.,concur.

SeparateOpinions

MORELAND,J.,dissenting:
Icannotconformtoadecisionwhich,inthetwentiethcenturyandinacivilizedcountry,makesitanoffensefora
persontoputwindowsinhisownhouse.
The law, if any (and I do not believe that the law invoked covers the case), upon which the decision is based,
together with the reasons for its existence, disappeared with the American occupation, and with the advent of
Americaninstitutions,Constitutionandlaws.
Moreover,itmightbewellbethatsuchalawwouldseriouslyconflictwiththoselaws,rulesandregulationswhich
arenecessarytoassureandpreservethepublichealth.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1911/dec1911/gr_6076_1911.html

4/4

You might also like