Short answer. No. Article 670 requires at least two meters between a direct-view window and the adjoining land, and sixty centimeters for side or oblique views. Crucially, it says the failure to keep these distances does not give rise to prescription, so a neighbor cannot turn an illegal window into a permanent right just by leaving it there over time.
What the law says
No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are made and such contiguous property.
Civil Code, Article 670 — Distances For Windows And Views. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
Civil Code, Article 670 — Distances For Windows And Views. Read the full provision →
The required distances
To protect neighbours from being overlooked, the Civil Code sets minimum gaps for view-affording openings near a boundary. Article 670 provides that no windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are made and such contiguous property. A direct-view window, in other words, must sit at least two meters from the neighbouring land. The rule guards a measure of privacy along the boundary between two properties.
Direct versus side views
The article distinguishes between how one looks out. For a direct view, straight onto the adjoining property, the required clearance is two meters. For side or oblique views, where one would have to turn to look toward the neighbour's land, the required distance is smaller, sixty centimeters. The stricter distance for direct views reflects the greater intrusion they pose. Both figures fix how close a view-affording opening may lawfully be placed to the line dividing the two properties.
No prescription for an illegal window
The most important part for a dispute is the last sentence: the nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription. Ordinarily, long, continuous, and open use can ripen into a permanent right by prescription. Article 670 shuts that door for view windows built too close. A neighbour cannot legalise a non-compliant window simply by keeping it in place for years. The violation does not mature into an easement, so the aggrieved owner's right to object is not lost by the passage of time.
What the affected owner can do
Because time does not cure the violation, an owner faced with a neighbour's view window built too close retains the right to demand that it be closed or brought into compliance with the required distances. The neighbour cannot answer that the window has stood for many years and has therefore become his by prescription. For anyone building near a boundary, the lesson is to respect the two-meter and sixty-centimeter distances from the start, since a shortcut cannot be secured against the neighbour merely by the lapse of time.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia vs. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita, G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rachel C. Celestial vs. Jesse Cachopero, G.R. No. 142595, October 15, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →