CUSTODIO V. CA
G.R. No. 116100
February 9,
1996
Ponentia:
Justice Regalado
FACTS:
·
Petitioner:
o
Spouses Cristino and Brigida Custodio
o
Spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos
·
Respondent:
o
CA
o
Heirs of Pacifico C. Mabasa
o
RTC Branch 181 Pasig
·
Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision
BACKGROUND:
·
Aug. 26, 1982 - grant of an easement of right of way was filed by
Pacifico Mabasa against Custodio, Morato, Santos before the RTC Pasig (Branch
22) - Pacifico Mabasa died during the pendency of case and substuted by
surviving spouse
·
Mabasa owns parcel of land with a 2-door apartment in
Taguig
o
Property is surrounded by other immovables pertaining
to defendants
o
Taking P. Burgos Street as the point of reference, on
the left side, going to plaintiff’s property, the row of houses will be as
follows: T
- That of defendants Cristino and Brigido
Custodio,
- then that of Lito and Maria Cristina Santos and
then
- that of Ofelia Mabasa.
- On the right side (is) that of defendant Rosalina
Morato and then a Septic Tank.
- As an access to P. Burgos Street from
plaintiff’s property, there are two possible passageways:
- The first passageway is approximately one
meter wide and is about 20 meters distant from Mabasa’s residence to P.
Burgos Street. Such path is passing in between the previously mentioned
row of houses.
- The second passageway is about 3 meters in
width and length from plaintiff Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Street;
it is about 26 meters. In
passing thru said passageway, a less than a meter-wide path through the
septic tank and with 5-6 meters in length, has to be traversed.
·
When said property was purchased by Mabasa, there were
tenants occupying the premises and who were acknowledged by plaintiff Mabasa as
tenants.
·
However, sometime in February 1982, one of said
tenants vacated the apartment and when plaintiff Mabasa went to see the
premises, he saw that there had been built an adobe fence in the first
passageway making it narrower in width.
o
Said adobe fence was first constructed by defendants
Santoses along their property which is also along the first passageway.
·
Defendant Morato constructed her adobe fence and even
extended said fence in such a way that the entire passageway was enclosed. And
it was then that the remaining tenants of said apartment vacated the area.
·
Defendant Ma. Cristina Santos testified that she
constructed said fence because there was an incident when her daughter was
dragged by a bicycle pedaled by a son of one of the tenants in said apartment
along the first passageway. She also mentioned some other inconveniences of
having (at) the front of her house a pathway such as when some of the tenants
were drunk and would bang their doors and windows, some of their footwear also
lost
·
Feb. 27, 1990 - RTC ordered Custodio and Santoses to give Mabasa
permanent access - ingress and egress, to the public street; ordering Mabasa to pay
defendants Custodios and Santoses 8,000 as indemnity for the permanent use of
the passageway.
·
Mabasa's heirs raised the issue of whether or not the court
erred in awarding damages in their favor.
o
Nov. 10, 1993 - CA affirmed judgement of the RTC with modification,
ordered Custodios/Santoses to pay Mabasa P65,000 (actual damages), P30,000
(moral damages), P10,000 (exemplary damages); the rest of the decision is
affirmed in all aspects
·
July 8, 1994 - CA denied petitioner's (Custodio/Santoses) motion for
reconsideration
·
Custodio/Santos filed petition for review SC
ISSUE/S:
·
Whether or not the grant of right of way to Mabasa
(PR) is proper
·
Whether or not the award for damages is in order.
JUDGMENT:
·
CA ruling REVERSED and SET ASIDE
·
RTC decision REINSTATED
HOLDING/RATIONALE:
·
No.
o
Petitioners are already barred from raising the same
since they did not appeal the decision of the court. They are presumed to be
satisfied with the adjudication therein; judgment of the trial court is final.
·
Yes, the CA erred in awarding damages in favor of
Mabasa.
o
No substantial legal basis
o
Based solely on the fact the Pacifico Mabasa incurred
losses (unrealized rentals) when the tenants vacated the leased premises by
reason of the closure of the passageway.
o
To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both
a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage
resulting to the plaintiff thereform.
o
Petitioners could not be said to have violated the
principle of abuse of right.
o
Requisites for abuse of right:
·
Defendant should have acted in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy
·
The acts should be willful
·
There was damage or injury to the plaintiff
o
Petitioners constructing a fence within their lot is a
valid exercise of their right as owners (not contrary to morals, good customs,
public policy); within their right as owners to enclose and fence their
property
o
At the
DICTA:
·
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong does not
constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy
allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
·
Material distinction between damages and injury:
o
Injury: illegal invasion of a legal right
o
Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from the
injury; recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered
o
There can be damage without injury in instances which
the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. (Damnum absque injuria)
·
Underlying basis for tort damage award:
- an individual was injured in contemplation of
law;
- there must be first the breach of some duty and
the imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be
awarded;
- not sufficient to declare tort liability merely
because the plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering.
·
The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from
an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong.
·
The law will give redress for an act causing damage,
that act must not only be harmful, but wrongful. There must be damunum et
injuria.
·
The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot
constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment