January 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > January 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-14116 January 20, 1961 - LAUREANA A. CID v. IRENE P. JAVIER, ET AL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-14116. January 20, 1961.]
LAUREANA A. CID, Petitioner, v. IRENE P. JAVIER, MANUEL P. JAVIER, JOSEFINA P. JAVIER, FERNANDO P. JAVIER, JOSE P. JAVIER, GUILLERMO P. JAVIER, ISIDORA P. JAVIER, BENJAMIN P. JAVIER, and LEONOR CRISOLOGO, Respondents.
Antonio Raquiza for Petitioner.
Cesar Javier for Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
BARRERA, J.:
The Decision in this case, promulgated on June 30, 1960, provided, among others, for the lifting of the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court directed against petitioner’s construction of a building allegedly being made in violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909 of the municipality of Laoag, and in disregard of respondent’s right to light and view.
In their motion for reconsideration timely presented, respondents claim that the findings of the lower court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the building under construction violated the aforementioned ordinance (from which no appeal was interposed) having become final, justify the issuance of and making permanent the injunction already issued.
There is no question that respondents’ house, as well as that of petitioner, are within their respective properties; that respondents’ wall stands only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the 2 lots, whereas, the wall of petitioner’s building was constructed 1 meter from the boundary of 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the wall of the house of respondents. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of the two houses overlap each other by 24 centimeters. This, the Court of Appeals declared to be violative of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909, amending Sections 1, 5, 6, and 13 of the Municipal Ordinance of June 3, 1903, which requires a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials.
It must be noted, however, that the Ordinance in question was adopted since 1909 and was, therefore, already in force at the time the house of respondents was reconstructed in 1946 after the building originally erected thereon was burned in 1942. If respondents constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner has constructed hers, there would be no overlapping of the eaves and there would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and the consequential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed to petitioner, as to require her alone to make the adjustments necessary for the observance of the 2-meter eaves-to-eaves distance from her neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be exacted, the adjustments should be made not only by petitioner, but also by the respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the injunction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and as the other grounds of respondents’ motion for reconsideration had been already duly considered in the Decision, the said motion is hereby denied, for lack of merit. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
In their motion for reconsideration timely presented, respondents claim that the findings of the lower court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the building under construction violated the aforementioned ordinance (from which no appeal was interposed) having become final, justify the issuance of and making permanent the injunction already issued.
There is no question that respondents’ house, as well as that of petitioner, are within their respective properties; that respondents’ wall stands only 50 centimeters from the boundary of the 2 lots, whereas, the wall of petitioner’s building was constructed 1 meter from the boundary of 1 meter and 50 centimeters from the wall of the house of respondents. As a result, the lower court found that the eaves of the two houses overlap each other by 24 centimeters. This, the Court of Appeals declared to be violative of Ordinance No. 3, series of 1909, amending Sections 1, 5, 6, and 13 of the Municipal Ordinance of June 3, 1903, which requires a distance of 2 meters, measured from eaves to eaves of adjoining buildings of strong materials.
It must be noted, however, that the Ordinance in question was adopted since 1909 and was, therefore, already in force at the time the house of respondents was reconstructed in 1946 after the building originally erected thereon was burned in 1942. If respondents constructed their house at least one meter from the boundary line, as petitioner has constructed hers, there would be no overlapping of the eaves and there would not be any violation of the ordinance. As things now stand, in view of the construction by the respondents, the overlapping of the eaves and the consequential violation of the ordinance can not entirely be attributed to petitioner, as to require her alone to make the adjustments necessary for the observance of the 2-meter eaves-to-eaves distance from her neighbors. If any compliance with the ordinance would be exacted, the adjustments should be made not only by petitioner, but also by the respondents. There is, therefore, no reason for the continuation of the injunction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and as the other grounds of respondents’ motion for reconsideration had been already duly considered in the Decision, the said motion is hereby denied, for lack of merit. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
