Rellosa v. Pellosis (2001)

Rellosa v. Pellosis (2001)

G.R. No. 138964

August 9, 2001

FACTS:

·       Petitioners: Vicente Rellosa (father), Cynthia Ortega (assisted by husband Roberto Ortega)

o   Counsel: Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr.

o   Filed petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

·       Respondents: Gonzalo Pellosis, Inesita Moste, Danilo Radam

o   Lessees of a parcel of land (San Pascual St., Malate, Manila) owned by Marta Reyes

o   Built a house on the land and underwent continuous improvements

o   Land was inherited by Victor Reyes after Marta's death

o   1986: Victor Reyes informed respondents would have a right of first refusal to buy the land

·       1989: Land occupied was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega ultimately securing title to the property in her name

o   Respondents had no knowledge

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 A. Office of the Building Official (Manila)

·       May 25, 1989: Cynthia Ortega filed petition for condemnation to the Office of the Building Official (Manila) of the structures of the land

·       Office of the Building Official: Ordered the demolition of the houses of respondents (Resolution dated November 27, 1989)

o   Dec. 7, 1989: copies of the decision were sent to respondents and their counsel

o   Dec. 8, 1989: petitioners hired workers to commence demolition of respondent's houses

·       Western Police District intervened suspended demolition

·       Respondent's counsel argued demolition order not yet final and executory; needed to be implemented

·       Dec. 11, 1989: respondents filed appeal contesting the order of the Office of the Building Official

·       Dec. 12, 1989: petitioners once again hired workers and proceeded with demolition

Regional Trial Court (Branch 54, Manila)

·       May 31, 1989: Respondents filed a suit for the "Declaration of Nullity of Sale"  (Civil Case No. 89-49176)

o   Seeking moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, untimely demolition of houses

·       RTC decision: DISMISSED complaint of respondents

o   Ordered to pay petitioners moral damages

Court of Appeals

·       REVERSED the decision of the RTC

·       Ordered petitioners to pay respondents moral damages, attorney's fees; cost of suit

o   Appellants (Pellosis) had 15 days from receipt of a copy of the same within which to perfect an administrative appeal

o   When demolition was commenced, neither the Resolution of the Building Official nor the Demolition Order itself were final and executory.

ISSUE/S: Waiver of Rights/Abuse of Rights

·       Whether or not petitioners acted in good faith in conformity with Article 19 of the Civil Code

·       Issue is NOT about the question about the existence of the right or validity of the order of demolition

HOLDING:

·       No.

JUDGMENT:

·       CA (assailed decision) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION

o   Modification: reducing the awards of damages

n

RATIONALE OF JUDGMENT:

·       Order of demolition was not yet final and executory

o   Respondents were deprived of their right for a 15 day appeal

·       Petitioners violated Article 19 Civil Code

o   When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.