Fabie v. Lichauco, 11 Phil. 15 (1908)
Facts: Petitioner Miguel Fabie applied for the registration of his property in Manila free from any encumbrances except theeasement of right of way in favor of respondents Julita Lichauco and Hijos de Roxas. In addition to the said right of way,respondents also claim that of light and view and drainage. However,the claim was later reduce only to that of the lightand view.Lichauco cliamed that when Juan Bautista Coloma, the original owner of bothestates, established not only an easement of right of way but also that of light and view and that when both the properties were alienated, the apparent signs were notremoved. The apparent sign allegedly consists of a gallery with windows through which light is admitted. It was supportedon columns erected on the ground belonging to the petitioner and the balcony on Lichauco’s property is supported byuprights erected on the land by petitioner. The parties admitted the existence of such gallery. The house was now afrontage of 18 meters and 60 centimeters, of which 16 meters and 60 centimeters correspond to the main part of thesame, and 1 meter and 90 centimeters to the gallery in question. It results, therefore, that at the present day, the househas nearly 2 meters more frontage than when it was alienated by Coloma. Therefore, at the present day the house iserected partly on the land belonging to the owner and partly, the gallery, over a lot belonging to another; that is, over thatof the petitioner. When it was sold in October, 1848, no portion of the house occupied the lot last mentioned, but theentire building was erected over a lot belonging to the owner as set forth in the instrument of sale.The lower court held that the right of way and drainage exist in favor of the respondents’ respective properties. The claim as to the easement of light and view was dismissed by the court. Issue: Whether or not Respondents are entitled to the easement of light and view. Held: No. The burden is not on the petitioner to prove on what time the gallery in controversy was constructed inasmuch as helimits himself to sustaining nad defending the freedom of his property, denying the easement o flight and view of therespondent pretends to impose over it. A property is assumed to be from all encumbrance unless the contrary is proved.Respondent who claims the said easement is obliged to prove the aforementioned gallery, in which the apparent sign of the easement is made to consist in the present case, existed at the time of ownership of her property and that of thepetitioner were separated. And inasmuch as this issue has not been proved,the claim of the respondents as to theeasements of the light and view which the petitioner does not admit, must of necessity be dismissed.Therefore, it does not appear from the agreement of the parties that the respondents has balconies over the land of thepetitioner; and as it is, since it has been positively shown that the said balconies exceed the limit of the lot owned by theformer, nor less that they invade the atmospheric area of the lot belonging to the latter, it follows that, even in accordancewith the theory maintained by the respondents with which on account of its lack of basis, we consider it unnecessary todeal herein as to its other aspect, the easement of view, which might result in such case from the existence of thebalconies alluded to, would be negative and not a positive one, because the erection of the same would not constitute,according to their own statement, an invasion of the right of another, but the lawful exercise of the right inherent to thedominion of the respondents to construct within their own lot. And as said easement is negative, it cannot have prescribedin favor of the property of the respondents in the absence of any act of opposition, according to theagreement, by whichthey or their principals would have prohibited the petitioner or his principals to do any work which obstruct the balconies inquestion, inasmuch as said act of opposition is what constitutes the necessary and indispensable point of departure forcomputing the time required by law for the prescription of negative easements. Thus, the judgment appealed from wasaffirmed in toto by the Court.