02/05/2026
BAR SPOTLIGHT: Civil Law V.B.10.d. Modes of Acquisition (Easements)
From the Gascon Law 2026 Bar Reviewer Series
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
In 1990, Maria owned two adjoining lots in Cebu City. On Lot A, she built a house with windows overlooking Lot B, which she used as a garden. In 2000, Maria sold Lot B to Jose. The deed of sale did not mention the windows. In 2023, Jose decided to build a two-storey structure on Lot B that will completely block Maria's windows.
SUGGESTED ANSWER FRAMEWORK (IRAC)
Issue:
(a) Can Maria prevent Jose from building the structure?
(b) Would your answer change if Maria had sold Lot A (with the house) to Jose instead of Lot B?
(c) Would your answer change if the original lots had never been owned by the same person?
Rule:
(a) Yes. Maria can prevent Jose from building. Under Article 624, when a common owner establishes an apparent sign of easement (the windows) between two estates and alienates one, the sign serves as title for the easement to continue. The easement of light and view was created by operation of law at the moment of sale because: (1) Maria was the common owner; (2) the windows were an apparent sign; (3) the deed was silent; and (4) the windows were not removed before the sale (Spouses Garcia v. Santos, G.R. No. 228334, 2019).
(b) Yes, the answer changes. If Maria sold Lot A (with the house), Maria becomes the servient owner (Lot B) and Jose becomes the dominant owner (Lot A with windows). Jose would have the easement of light and view, and Maria would be prohibited from building anything that blocks Jose's windows. The result is the same, the easement exists, but the parties' positions are reversed.
(c) Yes, the answer changes significantly. If the lots were never owned by the same person, Article 624 does not apply. Maria would need to acquire the easement by prescription under Articles 620-621. As an easement of light and view is negative, Maria would need to serve a notarial prohibition upon Jose forbidding him from building, then wait ten years. Without this prohibition, the prescriptive period never starts (Cortes v. Yu-Tibo). Jose could lawfully build the structure.
Want the full discussion? This topic is covered on the Gascon Law 2026 Bar Reviewer. The reviewer contains similar practice pointers, examiner insights, anticipated question patterns, and illustrative scenarios featuring Atty. Sablay and Pedro Pahamak throughout every subject area designed to help you spot the traps before the examiners do.
Don't take our word for it. See it for yourself.
𝙁𝙍𝙀𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙀𝙑𝙄𝙀𝙒 — First 100 pages. No sign-up needed. Just open and read.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qKhte1oWpYW0h76uzC3gdRkDGO0BO92g?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExbEFNNmxXZGZlbXR4SUJGVnNydGMGYXBwX2lkDzUxNDc3MTU2OTIyODA2MQABHg2SFC-DYFETKCzl46NW_MEcgf7XTFxwtdfoUgnS7XpbDJxSKUZ5P4s0tCHK_aem_2vHZHEiENL8IjtVm9sBSJw
For inquiries on how to get your copy, visit our page facebook.com/GasconLaw1
This Bar Spotlight is drawn from the Gascon Law 2026 Bar Reviewer Series by Atty. Nyll Gabrylle R. Gascon, CPA. Sharing is welcome - reproducing or reposting without attribution is not. © 2026. All rights reserved.
