Lao vs. Heirs of Alburo

A wall is not a party wall subject to the easement of party walls when exterior signs on the wall conflict with the existence of such easement, including when the entire wall is built on one lot and not on the dividing line, when the wall has projections on only one side, and when it supports the timbers of only one building. These exterior signs, being visible and permanent, prevail over the mere fact that the adjoining owner may have surreptitiously inserted timbers into the wall.

The applicants, Domingo Lao and his wife Albina de los Santos, sought registration of four parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, which they claimed to own absolutely, having acquired them by purchase through public instruments. The administrator of the estate of the deceased Lorenza Alburo, owner of the property adjoining the applicants' Lot No. 2, filed an objection claiming that a stone wall shown in the plan northeast of that parcel belonged exclusively to the deceased Alburo. The governing law was Article 572 of the Civil Code, which presumes the easement of party walls in dividing walls of adjoining buildings unless there is a title, exterior mark, or proof to the contrary, and Article 573, which enumerates the exterior signs that conflict with such easement.

Domingo Lao and his wife Albina de los Santos filed an application in the Court of Land Registration on May 8, 1914, seeking registration of four parcels of land with the buildings thereon, which they claimed to own absolutely. The first parcel, Lot No. 1, comprised a house and three accesorias of strong materials in Calle Juan Luna, Binondo, with an area of 175.08 square meters. The second parcel, Lot No. 2, comprised a house of strong materials, also in Calle Juan Luna, with an area of 212.05 square meters. The third parcel, Lot No. 3, was located in Calle Elcano, San Nicolas, Binondo, measuring 596.06 square meters, and the fourth parcel, also designated Lot No. 2 in the application, contained two buildings of strong materials, one of three stories, in Calle Elcano, measuring 813.01 square meters. The applicants acquired the parcels by purchase: the first from Felix Zalvidea by public instrument of June 11, 1912; the second from Clara Lichauco and her husband Catalino Arevalo by public instrument of September 12, 1912; the third from Antonio Abraham Brimo by public instrument of March 28, 1911; and the fourth from Marcela Lao by public instrument of April 17, 1914.

After due service of notice, counsel for the administrator of the estate of the deceased Lorenza Alburo filed a written objection alleging that a stone wall shown in the plan to be northeast of the second parcel had been improperly included in the application. The administrator claimed that this wall had belonged to Lorenza Alburo, had existed since March 8, 1881, that the principal timbers of the deceased's building had rested on it for more than thirty-five years, and that the deceased's successors had been in quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the wall. At trial, both parties introduced documentary and oral evidence, and the judge of the Court of Land Registration made a personal inspection of the wall and of the respective properties.

The Court of Land Registration held that the applicants conclusively and satisfactorily proved that they were, and had been for about forty years, the lawful owners and possessors of the four properties, and decreed their registration. However, the court ordered that record be made in the decree that the wall marked on the plan of parcel No. 2 as a stone wall was a party wall. The applicants appealed this finding, and the administrator's counsel ultimately admitted in assenting to the decision that the wall was a party wall, although he had averred in his written objection that it was the exclusive property of the objectors.

The record showed that the enclosing wall of Lot No. 2 was much higher than the adjoining building of the objectors; along the top of the wall there was a gutter that caught rain water from the eaves of the applicants' roof and carried it to Calle Juan Luna through an iron pipe fastened to the wall; one-half of the top of the wall was covered by the roof of the applicants' building; the supports of the wall projected toward the applicants' land with no buttresses on the objectors' side; and the stones of the wall were bound or inset in the rear enclosing wall of the applicants' property such that the two walls formed a single construction. On the objectors' land, flanking the disputed wall, there was another and lower wall with no connection to the one in question. Cayetano Arguelles, a master builder who climbed to the top of the wall and examined it, testified that the drain caught rain water from the applicants' roof, that the division or space between the applicants' wall and the wall on the objectors' land could be seen from outside, and that the lower part of the objectors' wall had two arch-like hollows. According to the objector Ireneo Mendoza, the latter wall was that of an old building that had belonged to the deceased and was destroyed by an earthquake, and in the rear of the objectors' land were ruins of a wall that had flanked the disputed wall, which Mendoza said were what remained of a latrine formerly existing there.

• Exclusive Ownership of the Wall: The applicants argued that the stone wall was not a party wall but formed part of their strong-material house constructed on Lot No. 2, and that it belonged exclusively to them.
• Error in the Decree: The applicants excepted to the trial court's finding that the wall was a party wall and moved for a new trial, which was overruled, leading to their appeal by bill of exceptions.

• Exclusive Ownership by the Deceased: The administrator of the estate of Lorenza Alburo alleged in his written objection that the stone wall had belonged to the deceased, had existed since March 8, 1881, and that the principal timbers of the deceased's building had rested on it for more than thirty-five years, with the deceased's successors in quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession.
• Admission of Party Wall Status: At the appeal stage, counsel for the administrator finally admitted, in assenting to the lower court's decision, that the wall was a party wall, although he had originally averred it was the exclusive property of the objectors.

• Party Wall Determination: Whether the stone wall between the applicants' Lot No. 2 and the objectors' adjoining property was a party wall subject to the easement of party walls, or whether it belonged exclusively to the applicants.

• Party Wall Determination: No. The wall in litigation was fully proven by the record to belong exclusively to the applicants, and the exterior signs on the wall conflicted with the existence of the party wall easement under Article 573 of the Civil Code.

• Party Wall Determination: Article 572 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of party walls is presumed, unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary, in the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point of elevation. Article 573 declares that there are exterior signs which conflict with the easement of party wall when, among other circumstances, the entire wall is built on one of the lots and not on the line dividing the two adjoining parcels; when the dividing wall, being constructed of stone and cement, has stone projecting at intervals from the surface on one side only and not on the other; and when it supports joists, beams, floors, and the roof timbers of one of the houses but not of the adjoining building. The record proved that the enclosing wall of Lot No. 2 was much higher than the adjoining building of the objectors; a gutter along the top caught rain water from the applicants' roof and carried it to Calle Juan Luna through an iron pipe fastened to the wall; one-half of the top of the wall was covered by the applicants' roof; the wall's supports projected toward the applicants' land with no buttresses on the objectors' side; and the stones of the wall were bound or inset in the applicants' rear enclosing wall such that the two walls formed a single construction. These exterior signs showed that the wall was not a party wall but formed part of the applicants' building. The exterior signs could not be offset by the circumstance that the disputed wall projected into Calle Juan Luna 74 centimeters farther than the applicants' building, nor by the fact that the face of the projecting wall was on the same street line as the objectors' building, because the projection of the wall did not prove it was a party wall in light of the signs to the contrary. The objectors did not prove that part or one-half of the wall was erected on the land of the deceased Lorenza Alburo. The fact that the owners of the objectors' property may have surreptitiously inserted some timbers or joists of their building into the wall belonging to the applicants was not enough to convert it into a party wall when so many exterior signs indicated exclusive ownership and conflicted with the easement the objectors endeavored to establish.

• Easement of Party Walls (Presumption and Rebuttal) — Under Article 572 of the Civil Code, the easement of party walls is presumed in the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point of elevation, unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary. In this case, the presumption was rebutted by the numerous exterior signs on the wall that indicated the applicants' exclusive ownership.
• Exterior Signs Conflicting with Party Wall Easement — Under Article 573 of the Civil Code, exterior signs that conflict with the easement of party wall include: (a) when the entire wall is built on one of the lots and not on the line dividing the two adjoining parcels; (b) when the dividing wall, being constructed of stone and cement, has stone projecting at intervals from the surface on one side only and not on the other; and (c) when it supports joists, beams, floors, and the roof timbers of one of the houses but not of the adjoining building. The Court applied these enumerated signs to the physical evidence on the disputed wall and found that all indicated the applicants' exclusive ownership.
• Surreptitious Insertion of Timbers Not Enough to Create Party Wall — The fact that adjoining owners may have surreptitiously inserted some timbers or joists of their building into a wall belonging to another is not enough to convert that wall into a party wall when there are so many exterior signs indicating exclusive ownership and conflicting with the existence of the easement.

• "Article 572 of the Civil Code provides that the easement of party walls is presumed, unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary in the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point of elevation." — This passage states the governing presumption that the Court applied, establishing the starting point for the analysis of whether the disputed wall was a party wall.
• "The record shows it to have been duly proven that the enclosing wall of Lot No. 2 of the plan Exhibit A, belonging to the applicants, is much higher than the adjoining building of the objectors; that along the top of the said wall there is a gutter which catches the rain water from the eaves of the roof of the applicants' building and carries it thence to Calle Juan Luna through an iron pipe fastened to the said wall; that one-half of the top of the said wall is covered by the roof of the applicants' building; that the supports of the said wall project toward the side of the applicants' land and that none of the buttresses are on the side of the objectors' lot." — This passage enumerates the exterior signs the Court found determinative in concluding that the wall belonged exclusively to the applicants.
• "The fact that the owners of the objectors' property may have surreptitiously inserted some of the timbers or joists of their building in the wall belonging to the applicants is not enough to convert this latter into a party wall, when there are so many exterior signs to indicate the exclusive ownership of the wall and to conflict with the existence of the easement that the objectors endeavor to establish." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of the objectors' claim, holding that the physical evidence of exclusive ownership prevails over the mere insertion of timbers into the wall.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 572, Civil Code — Provides that the easement of party walls is presumed, unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary, in the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point of elevation. The Court applied this provision as the starting presumption, which was then rebutted by the exterior signs on the disputed wall.
• Article 573, Civil Code — Declares that there are exterior signs which conflict with the easement of party wall, including when the entire wall is built on one lot, when the wall has projections on one side only, and when it supports the timbers of only one building. The Court applied this provision to the physical evidence and found that the enumerated signs were present on the disputed wall.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.