Valenzuela vs. Unson

A dividing wall between two adjoining properties is presumed to be a party wall when the exterior signs indicate common use and support, and such a wall cannot be registered in land registration proceedings over the objection of a co-owner.

The plaintiffs (Valenzuela, et al.) and the defendants (Pedro Unson and Felix Unson) are owners of adjoining lots in the municipality of Pagsanjan, Province of Laguna, separated by a stone wall approximately thirty meters long and thirty-eight centimeters wide. The plaintiffs initiated proceedings under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) to register thirty-four parcels of land, including the lot on which the wall stands. The objectors, who own the adjacent lot, opposed the registration of the wall portion (designated as lot No. 1-A), claiming it belonged to them or was at least jointly held. The dispute required the Court to determine the ownership status of the wall under the presumptions established by the Civil Code for dividing walls between adjoining properties.

On December 11, 1912, the plaintiffs—Margarita Valenzuela and others—filed a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of thirty-four parcels of land located in the municipality of Pagsanjan, Province of Laguna. The municipality of Pagsanjan objected to the registration of a small portion designated as No. 1-B, but the plaintiffs conceded that claim and the portion was excluded from the petition.

Pedro Unson and Felix Unson, the owners of a lot adjoining the plaintiffs' lot No. 1, opposed the registration of a portion of that lot designated as No. 1-A. This portion consists of a stone wall constructed between the plaintiffs' lot and the objectors' lot. The wall extends from the street running in front of both properties, between the two lots, for a distance of approximately thirty meters. It is about thirty-eight centimeters wide and separates the lots claimed by the respective parties. The south end of the wall, abutting upon the street, is higher than the rest of it. At intervals along the wall there are buttresses constructed on both sides. About midway between the street and the rear end of the lots, a kitchen belonging to the defendants rests upon the wall—part of the kitchen's foundation is the wall itself—and the proof shows that the kitchen is approximately forty years old. About eight meters from the street, a cross wall on the plaintiff's property is joined to the wall in question.

Along the street and in front of the lots there is a sidewalk, which divides on the plaintiff's side of the wall. The wall appears to have been built as a single, continuous structure; there is no indication that it was constructed as two separate walls joined together at a later time. The wall is very old, is built on or near the dividing line between the lots, and contains no openings. The plaintiffs attempted to show that the defendants' kitchen was built upon the wall by express permission granted by the plaintiffs or their predecessors. The defendants' witnesses strongly denied this, claiming that the kitchen was built without permission and without objection from the plaintiffs.

The lower court, after hearing the evidence, concluded that the wall perhaps originally belonged to parcel No. 1, but that the plaintiffs had permitted the objectors to occupy and control it for a period of approximately forty-four years without objection, and therefore excluded the land occupied by the wall from lot No. 1. Upon a motion for rehearing by the petitioners, the lower court modified its decision on December 15, 1913, declaring the wall to be a party wall, though it did not decree the registration of the wall. The objectors appealed to the Supreme Court; the petitioners did not appeal.

• Ownership of the Wall: Petitioners argued that the wall belonged exclusively to them, attempting to show that the defendants' kitchen was built upon the wall by express permission granted by the petitioners or their predecessors, thereby retaining their claim of ownership despite the defendants' use of the wall.

• Ownership of the Wall: Respondents countered that the kitchen was built upon the wall without permission and without objection from the plaintiffs, disputing the petitioners' claim of exclusive ownership and asserting their own rights over the wall.

• Status of the Wall: Whether the stone wall separating the parties' adjoining lots is a party wall or belongs exclusively to one of the parties.
• Registrability of a Party Wall: Whether a party wall can be registered in land registration proceedings over the objection of one of the joint owners.

• Status of the Wall: Yes. The wall is a party wall, belonging jointly to the petitioners and the objectors, the physical signs—buttresses on both sides, a single continuous structure, and use by both parties—giving rise to the presumption under Article 572 of the Civil Code.
• Registrability of a Party Wall: No. A party wall cannot be registered in the present proceedings when one of the joint owners objects, pursuant to Section 19 of Act No. 496, which prohibits one of several joint owners from registering land against the opposition of the others.

• Status of the Wall: The Court examined the exterior signs presented by the wall itself to determine its ownership status. The wall is a solid, very old structure built on or near the dividing line between the two lots, with buttresses on both sides, no openings, and no indication that it was built as two separate walls joined together. Both parties had used the wall to support structures on their respective lots—the defendants' kitchen (approximately forty years old) rested on it, and the plaintiffs had a cross wall joined to it. The conflicting testimony regarding whether the defendants' kitchen was built with the plaintiffs' permission could not resolve the question. Under Article 572 of the Civil Code, when there is no title or presumption to the contrary, a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is presumed to be a party wall. The Court found that the physical characteristics of the wall—particularly the buttresses on both sides and the mutual use by both proprietors—supported the presumption that the wall is a party wall belonging jointly to both parties.

• Registrability of a Party Wall: Having determined that the wall is a party wall jointly owned by both parties, the Court addressed whether it could be registered in the land registration proceedings. Section 19 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) provides that one of two or more joint owners of land cannot have the same registered against the opposition of the other joint owners. Since the objectors—one of the joint owners—opposed the registration, the wall could not be registered in the present proceeding. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment, which had declared the wall a party wall without decreeing its registration.

• Presumption of Party Wall (Pared Medianera) — Under Article 572 of the Civil Code, when there is no title or presumption to the contrary, a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is presumed to be a party wall. The presumption is supported by exterior signs such as buttresses on both sides of the wall, the wall's location on or near the dividing line, its construction as a single continuous structure, and the mutual use of the wall by both proprietors to support their respective structures. In this case, the Court applied the presumption based on the wall's physical characteristics and the conflicting testimony regarding ownership, concluding that the wall belonged jointly to both parties.

• Joint Ownership and Land Registration — Under Section 19 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), one of two or more joint owners of land cannot register the same against the opposition of the other joint owners. The Court applied this provision to bar the registration of the party wall, since one co-owner (the objectors) opposed the registration.

• "When there is no little presumption that a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is a party wall." — This passage states the Court's invocation of the Civil Code presumption for dividing walls, the controlling rule upon which the determination of the wall's status as a party wall was based.

• "One of two or more joint owners of land cannot have the same registered against the opposition of the other joint owners." — This passage articulates the rule under Section 19 of Act No. 496 that prevents a single co-owner from registering jointly owned land over the objection of the others, the basis for denying registration of the wall.

• Case vs. Heirs of Tuason, 14 Phil. Rep., 521 — Cited as supporting authority for the proposition that a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is presumed to be a party wall under Article 572 of the Civil Code. The Court relied on this case in applying the presumption to the wall in question.

• Article 572, Civil Code — Establishes the presumption that a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is a party wall when there is no title or presumption to the contrary. The Court applied this provision based on the wall's exterior signs—buttresses on both sides, single continuous construction, location on the dividing line, and mutual use by both parties—to conclude that the wall is a party wall.

• Section 19, Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) — Provides that one of two or more joint owners of land cannot have the same registered against the opposition of the other joint owners. The Court applied this provision to bar registration of the party wall, as one co-owner objected to the registration.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Trent, Araullo, JJ., and Moreland, J., concurred.