Lao vs Heirs of Alburo

SPS. LAO VS HEIRS OF ALBURO

FACTS: ‐Sps Lao owned 4parcels of land(Lot1‐4) ‐Sps Lao filed an application application for the registration of the 4 lots. ‐Heirs of Alburo objected the application with respect to the lot no. 2, which they alleged that the registration of lot no. 2 included the wall which according to them belonged to Lorenza Alburo. ISSUE: WON the wall is a party wall? RULING: The wall in question is NOT a party wall. ‐The SC cited articles 572&573 of the old CC(now article 659&660) 659‐easement of party wall is presumed presumed unless unless there is title or exterior exterior marks or proof to the contrary. 660‐esterior signs which conflicts the easement of party wall. ‐In this case it was proven that: a.) the wall is higher higher than the building of the Alburo’s Alburo’s b.) on the top of the wall, there is a gutter which catches the water rain from the roof of the the bldg. of sps lao. c.) there is a pipe connected connected from the gutter gutter and attached attached from the wall, it carries the water rain to the street. d.) the roof of the the bldg. of sps lao lao covered the ½ portion portion of the top of the wall. wall. e.) the supports of the wall were positioned on the lot of sps. Lao   f.) STONE THESE EXTERIOR SIGNS SHOWS THAT THE WALL IS NOT A PARTY WALL BUT AN EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SPS LAO. HEIRS OF ALBURO FAILED TO PROVE THAT PORTION OF THE WALL WAS ERECTED ON THEIR LAND.

‐the exterior signs cannot be defeated by the fact that the wall extends to the street 74m farther than sps lao’s bldg. nor by the facts that the face of the wall is on the same street line as the bldg. of alburo.