Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    Soriano vs. Sternberg

    Uploaded by

    MA
    This case has already been abandoned in recent cases ruled by the Supreme Court. This is uploaded for purposes of discussion / reference under the topic "easements".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Soriano vs. Sternberg

    Uploaded by

    MA
    236 views1 page
    This case has already been abandoned in recent cases ruled by the Supreme Court. This is uploaded for purposes of discussion / reference under the topic "easements".

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case has already been abandoned in recent cases ruled by the Supreme Court. This is uploaded for purposes of discussion / reference under the topic "easements".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    236 views1 page

    Soriano vs. Sternberg

    Uploaded by

    MA
    This case has already been abandoned in recent cases ruled by the Supreme Court. This is uploaded for purposes of discussion / reference under the topic "easements".

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Soriano vs.

    Sternberg

    Facts:
    Oscar Sternberg owns a parcel of land with
    a two storey-house which was built in 1905.
    The said house has windows overlooking
    the adjacent lot belonging to Soriano.
    The windows were built on the wall of the
    house which has a 1.36 m. distance from
    the dividing line between the two lots.
    Thereafter, Soriano filed an action to
    compel Sternberg to close the windows
    because it is less than 2 meters from the
    division line between the two lots and
    hence, a violation of Article 582 (now
    Article 670) of the Civil Code.
    The law provides that "No windows or
    balconies or other similar projections which
    directly overlook the adjoining property
    may be opened or built without leaving a
    distance of not less than 2 meters between
    the wall in which they are built and such
    adjoining property.
    Sternberg argues that the action of Soriano
    has already prescribed.
    It must be noted that there is no annotation
    in the Torrens title of the parties involved.
    (No easement of view in the title of Soriano
    and no right to easement on the title of
    Sternberg.)
    Here, there is no question of easement.

    Issue: WON a right of action to enforce Article 582 of
    the Civil code may be lost by failure to prosecute
    within the prescriptive period fixed by the Code of Civil
    Procedure.

    Held: Yes.

    In this case, Sternberg has never prohibited Soriano
    from building any wall on his own land. Sorianos cause
    of action only arose in 1905 when Sternberg built the
    offending edifice (building).

    Nevertheless, the windows complained of were
    permitted to be open for thirteen years (1918) without
    protest from Soriano. Soriano must, consequently, by
    reason of his own laches, be considered to have waived
    any right which he may have had to compel the
    windows to be closed.

    It is our holding that plaintiff right of action under
    article 582 of the Civil Code accrued in 1905 when the
    windows in defendant's house were opened, and that,
    in accordance with Chapter III of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, his action has prescribed.


    In case iask:
    The argument of Soriano that it was only in 1917, when
    he bought the land in question, that the statute of
    limitations began to run, is not convincing, for the
    general rule is, that once the statute begins to run, it
    never stops, and the transfer of the cause of action
    does not have the effect of suspending its operation.

    Art. 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other
    similar projections which afford a direct view upon or
    towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made,
    without leaving a distance of two meters between the
    wall in which they are made and such contiguous
    property.
    Neither can side or oblique views upon or
    towards such conterminous property be had, unless
    there be a distance of sixty centimeters.
    The nonobservance of these distances does not
    give rise to prescription.

    You might also like