6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-5044

TodayisFriday,June27,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L5044December1,1909
EDWINCASE,petitionerappellant,
vs.
THEHEIRSOFTUASONYSANTIBAEZ,opponentsappellees.
HartiganandRohde,andRomanLacsonforappellant.
Rosado,SanzandOpissoforappellees.

TORRES,J.:
Onthe7thofDecember,1906,theattorneysforEdwinCasefiledapetitionwiththeCourtofLandRegistration
requesting that the property owned by the applicant, described in the petition, be registered in accordance with
theprovisionsofLandRegistrationAct.AfterawrittenoppositionwaspresentedbyFelipeR.Caballeroonthe6th
of June, 1907, on behalf of the heirs of late Pablo Tuason and Leocadia Santibaez, counsel for the applicant,
Case,onAugust2,1907,amendedtheoriginalpetitionandsetforth:thatsaidproperty,situatedinCalleEscolta,
districtofBinondo,consistsofaparceloflandandthebuildingerectedthereonbearingNos.142and152itis
boundedonthenorthwest,approximately,bytheesteroofSantaCruzandthepropertyofCarmendeAyalade
Roxas on the southeast by the River Pasig on the southwest by the property of the heirs of Tuason and
SantibaezandonthenorthwestbyCalleEscoltaandtheaforesaidpropertyofCarmendeAyaladeRoxasthat
thetotalareais3,251.84squaremeters,itsdescriptionandboundariesbeingdetailedintheplanattachedtothe
petitionthataccordingtothelastassessmentmadeforthepurposesoftaxationthelandwasvaluedatP170,231
andthebuildingsthereonatP30,000thatthepropertyisfreefromallincumbrance,andnoonehasanyinterest
thereinorrighttheretothatonthenortheastsidethepropertyhasinitsfavortherightofeasementoversome
234.20squaremetersoflandownedbythesaidAyaladeRoxas,andthattheapplicantacquiredthepropertyby
successionfromDoaClotildeRomree.
Inthewrittenoppositionabovealludedto,counselfortheheirsofPabloTuasonandLeocadiaSantibaezalleged
thatthepartieswhomherepresentsareownersincommonofthepropertyadjoiningthatofthepetitioneronthe
southwestthatthelatter,inmakingtheplanattachedtohispetition,extendedhissouthwestboundarylinetoa
portionofthelotofthesaidheirsofTuasonandSantibaezintheformindicatedbytheredlineintheannexed
plan that the true dividing line between the property of the petitioner and that of the said heirs is the walls
indicated in black ink on the accompanying plan that said walls belong to the opponents, and that about two
years ago, when the applicant made alterations in the buildings erected on his land, he improperly caused a
portionofthemtorestonthewallownedbythepartieswhomherepresents,atpoint12,13,and14ofsaidplan
forwhichreasontheopponentprayedthecourttodirecttheapplicanttoamendthelinemarkedinhisplanwith
thelettersY,X,U,T,S,andR,sothatitmayagreewiththewallindicatedbythenumbers1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,
10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on the plan which accompanies the written opposition, reducing the area to whatever it
may be after the amendment has been made that the applicant be compelled to remove the supports that he
placedforhisbuildingsonthewalloftherepresentativesofthepetitioner,andthathebesentencedtopaythe
costs.
Thecasewasbroughttotrial,bothpartiesadducedevidence,andtheirexhibitsweremadeofrecord.Thecourt,
assistedbytheinterestedpartiesandtheirrespectiveexperts,madeaninspectionofthetwoproperties,inview
ofwhichitenteredjudgmentonthe31stofJuly,1908,sustainingtheoppositionofferedbytherepresentativeof
theheirsofPabloTuasonLeocadiaSantibaez,andafterdeclaringageneraldefaultgrantedtheregistrationof
the property described in the application filed by Edwin Case, with the exclusion of the wall claimed by the
opponentsandshownontheirplanbythelinesnumbered1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,and14andin
view of the fact that the lines drawn on the plan offered in evidence by the applicant under letter G are not
correctly drawn, once this decision shall have become final, let the dividing line of both properties be fixed by
common accord between the two parties and their experts, taking as a base for the same the amended line of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/dec1909/gr_l-5044_1909.html

1/3

6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-5044

walls drawn on the plan of the opponents, but should they not reach an agreement a surveyor of the Court of
Land Registration shall be detailed to fix the same at the expense of the parties the court also ordered the
cancellation of the registration entries of the property entered in the name of Clotilde Romree, principal of the
petitioner,atpage142andthosefollowingofvolume15,sectionofBinondoand52oftheregister,propertyNo.
828,firstentry.
On the 12th of August, 1908, the petitioner moved for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was not
sufficienttojustifythedecisionofthecourtinexcludingthewallclaimedbytheopponentsthatsaiddecisionwas
contrarytothelaw,insofarasitexcludesthesaidwall,andthattheconclusionsoffactthereinareopenlyand
manifestlycontrarytotheweightoftheevidenceinsofarastheyreferredtotheexclusionofsaidwall.Thesaid
motionwasoverruledonthe15thofsamemonth,towhichoverrulingtheapplicantexceptedandannouncedhis
intention to perfect the corresponding bill of exceptions which was filed, approved, and submitted to this court
togetherwiththeproperassignmentoferrors.
IntheappealinterposedbytheapplicantagainstthedecisionoftheCourtofLandRegistration,nowbeforethis
court,thequestionssetuparemerelyoffact.
ThequestioniswhetherthewallthatwithslightinterruptionrunsfromCalleEscoltatotheRiverPasig,andwhich
dividestheadjoiningpropertiesoftheapplicant,EdwinCase,andoftheopponents,belongstotheformer,ashe
claimedinthefirstinstance,orisadividingwallasaffirmedinhisbriefinthissecondinstance,oristheproperty
ofthesaidopponents,theheirsofthelateTuasonandSantibaez.
lawphi1.net

The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by both parties to the suit, found that the wall in
controversybelongstotheopponentsforthereason,amongothers,thatinthepublicdocumentbywhichoneof
theiroriginalancestorsacquiredonthe19thofApril,1796,thepropertynowpossessedbythem,itappearsthat
property was then already inclosed by a stone wall. This document, which was offered in evidence by the
opponents,hasnotbeenimpugnedbytheapplicant.Onthecontrary,itwasacknowledgeasthetitledeedofthe
propertyadjoiningthatoftheapplicantbythewitnessJuanB.Tuason,whoknowstheoneandtheother.
It is fully proven that two walls extend from Calle Escolta to the interior of both properties, the one backing the
other,andwhichrespectivelysupporttheedificesofthepetitionerandoftheopponentsfrompoints36,35,34,
33,32,31,and30ontheplanofthepetitionercorrespondingtopoints1to6onthatoftheopponents.
Thissectionofthewalloftheopponentsembracedwithinthepointsmentionedintheplansofferedinevidence
bytheparties,forveryreasonthatitsupportsonlythepropertyoftheopponentsandnotthatofthepetitioner,
cannotbeapartywall,onehalfofwhichalongitsentirelengthwouldbelongtotheadjoiningbuildingownedby
Mr.Case.Thereisnotsufficientprooftosustainsuchclaim,andbesides,thebuildingerectedthereondisproves
thepretensionofthepetitioner.
Itshould,however,benotedthattheportionofthewallbetweenthenumbers3,4,5,and6ontheplanofthe
opponents,whichcorrespondstonumbers33,32,31,and30ofthatofthepetitioner,andwhichconstitutesthe
cesspoolonthepropertyofthelatter,belongstohim,andithassobeenadmittedbycounselfortheopponents,
forthereasonthatthepetitionerhadacquireditbyprescription,theopponentshavinglostcontroloverthearea
oflandcoveredbythesaidcesspooltogetherwiththewallsthatincloseit.
Underarticle572oftheCivilCodetheeasementofpartywallsispresumed,unlessthereisatitleorexteriorsign,
orprooftothecontrary,amongothers,individingwallsadjoiningbuildingsuptothecommonpointofelevation.
Thelegalpresumptionastopartywallsislimitedtothethreecasesdealtwithinthesaidarticleofthecode,and
isthatofjuristantumunlessthecontraryappearfromthetitleofownershipoftheadjoiningproperties,thatisto
say,thattheentirewallincontroversybelongstooneofthepropertyowners,orwherethereisnoexteriorsignto
destroysuchpresumptionandsupportapresumptionagainstthepartywall. (Art.573,CivilCode.)
lawphi1.net

The intermediate portion of the walls in question, lying between numbers 6 and 13 on the defendants' plan,
equivalent to a little more than numbers 30 to 25 on the plan of the petitioner, is the portion against which no
otherwallappearstohavebeenerectedonthelandownedbyMr.Case.Inspiteofthisitcannotbepresumed
thattheaforesaidportionwasapartywall,andthatitwasnotexclusivelyownedbythedefendants,inasmuchas
thelatterhaveprovenbymeansofagoodtitlethathasnotbeenimpugnedbythepetitioner,thatwhenoneof
theirancestorsandprincipalsacquiredthepropertythelotwasalreadyinclosedbythewallonwhichthebuilding
waserecteditmustthereforebeunderstoodthatinthepurchaseofthepropertythewallbywhichthelandwas
inclosedwasnecessarilyincluded.
The above documentary evidence has not been overcome by any other presented by the petitioner, but apart
fromthatrecorddisclosestheexistenceofcertainunquestionablesigns.Theseconsistofconstructionsmadeby
thepetitionerhimselfonhisownpropertywhichentirelydestroyanypresumptionthatitisapartywall,andindeed
givesrisetoapresumptionagainstit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/dec1909/gr_l-5044_1909.html

2/3

6/27/2014

G.R. No. L-5044

Threeopeningshavebeenmadeinthewall,undoubtedlytoallowthepassageofairandlight.Twoofthemare
beveled on the side toward the land of the objectors, and the third has recently been beveled on the other. A
rafter or lintel was found imbedded in the wall on the side of the property of the opponents. These things
constituteexteriorsignsandwererecordedastheresultofpersonalinspectionbythetrialcourtincompanywith
theexpertsofbothparties.Thesesignspositivelyandconclusivelyprovethatthesaidwallisnotapartywall,but
theexclusivepropertyofthedefendant.Thisisfurtherconfirmedbythetestimonyofthewitnessesatthetrial.
The fact that the petitioner built a wall and backed it against the one in question to support the edifice he had
constructedbetweenpoints21and13ofthecorrectedplanisafurtherindicationthattheneighboringwallisnot
apartyone.Heknewperfectlywellthathehadnorighttoresthisbuildingonthelatter.Thathebuiltaterrace
aboutfouryearspreviouslyoverthewallbetweenpoints30,29,28,and27doesnotprovethatthewholeofthe
wall,fromtheEscoltatotheRiverPasig,isapartywall,butitdoesshowthatheusurpedaportionthereoftothe
prejudiceoftherealowner.
NeithercanitbepresumedthatthatpartofthewallborderingontheRiverPasigcomprisedbetweenpoints13
and14isapartywall.Itwasshownintheproceedingsasresultingfromtheabovementionedocularinspection
thatthesideofthesaidwall,whichisratheralowone,thereisanother,ahigheroneerectedonthepetitioner's
land and backed against the one in question. The first one, as has been said, forms part of that which has
surrounded the property from the date of its acquisition, more than a century ago, until the present date. It is
absolutelyindependentofthatbuiltbythepetitioner,andthatitistheexclusivepropertyoftheobjectorsandis
notapartywallcannotbedenied.
It therefore appears from the proceedings that, with the exception of the small portion of the wall in question
occupiedbythelatrineonthepropertyofthepetitioner,andwhichtheopponentsadmitthathehasacquiredby
prescription,thewholeofsaidwallfromtheEscoltatotheRiverPasigcannotbepresumedtobeapartywallthe
evidence to the contrary conclusively proves that it belonged exclusively to the defendants, and it has been
furthershowninthecasethatatonetimeanoldbuildingbelongingtotheopponentsusedtorestonaportionof
thewallneartheriver.
lawphi1.net

Inviewoftheforegoing,andconsideringthatthejudgmentappealedfromisinaccordancewiththelawandthe
merits of the case, it is our opinion that the same should be affirmed in full, as we do hereby affirm it, with the
costsagainstthepetitioner.Soordered.
Arellano,C.J.,Mapa,Johnson,Carson,andMoreland,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/dec1909/gr_l-5044_1909.html

3/3