Soriano v. Sternberg
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Manuel Soriano sought a judicial order to compel the defendant Oscar Sternberg to close windows in his house adjacent to the plaintiff's property. The defendant's house, with four windows and a gallery on the upper story, and two windows, one door, and a lattice opening on the lower story, was situated 1.36 meters from the dividing line between the properties. These openings had been present since 1905. The views from the defendant's windows onto the plaintiff's lot were direct, and vice versa. Neither party's Torrens title indicated any easement of view or right to an easement. Procedural History: The lower court agreed with the plaintiff's contention and ordered the windows to be closed, with costs against the defendant. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, primarily relying on the defense of prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff's action to compel the closure of the defendant's windows, which were opened in 1905, has prescribed. Whether the plaintiff's right of action under Article 582 of the Civil Code is subject to the prescriptive periods provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with costs of both instances against him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of the action to enforce Article 582 of the Civil Code: The Court held that the plaintiff's right of action under Article 582 of the Civil Code accrued in 1905 when the windows in the defendant's house were opened. The defendant's house had stood with these identical openings since 1905, which was the year the alleged violation of the law occurred and thus the date when the cause of action accrued. The plaintiff permitted these windows to remain open for thirteen years without protest. The Court found the plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations began to run only in 1917, when he bought the land, to be unconvincing. It reiterated the general rule that once the statute of limitations begins to run, it does not stop, and the transfer of the cause of action does not suspend its operation. Therefore, in accordance with Chapter III of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff's action had prescribed. On the applicability of prescriptive periods to easements of view: The Court clarified that while the case involved provisions of law concerning easements, the core issue was whether a right of action to enforce Article 582 of the Civil Code could be lost by failure to prosecute within the prescriptive period fixed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the defendant had never prohibited the plaintiff from building on his own land. The Court's holding was that the plaintiff's right of action, which accrued in 1905, had prescribed by the time the action was filed, due to the thirteen-year period of inaction and protest.
Main Doctrine
The right of action to enforce Article 582 of the Civil Code, concerning easements of view, accrues when the offending windows are opened. Failure to file an action within the prescriptive period fixed by the Code of Civil Procedure results in the prescription of the right of action, even if the property subject to the easement is subsequently transferred.