Case Summary (G.R. No. 140420)
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanay, Rizal, dismissed respondents’ December 15, 1989 complaint for damages alleging wrongful demolition.
- Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-GR CV No. 41451 (April 21, 1999), set aside the RTC decision and ordered petitioner to pay respondents ₱250,000.
- CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (October 19, 1999).
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Facts
• 1965: In special proceedings for Julio Cantolos’s estate, two lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda; they mortgaged these lots to secure petitioner’s attorney’s fees.
• 1969: Upon heirs’ failure to pay, petitioner foreclosed the mortgage, acquiring the lots at public auction in 1973. One lot bore respondents’ house.
• 1973–1985: Heirs’ annulment suit was dismissed by the CFI and affirmed by the CA; possession was granted in petitioner’s favor.
• July 25, 1985: CFI issued writ of possession; August 1985: notice to vacate; April–May 1986: RTC orders for demolition.
• June 2, 1986: Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining further demolition; served on petitioner June 4, 1986.
• Despite the TRO, the house was completely demolished by mid-1987.
• Respondents filed their damage suit; RTC dismissed it; CA reversed.
Issue
Whether petitioner, having continued demolition in defiance of the Supreme Court’s TRO, is liable for damages under the 1987 Constitution and civil law principles.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 jurisprudence)
• Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 19 (duty to act with justice, give others their due, and observe honesty and good faith)
• Principle of damnum absque injuria (loss without injury) and its limitation by the abuse of rights doctrine
Ruling and Reasoning
- Damnum absque injuria protects only the valid exercise of rights; no remedy exists for lawful acts causing loss.
- The Supreme Court’s TRO, served on petitioner, suspended his right to demolish. Continued demolition after June 4, 1986 constituted an abuse of right and an invalid exercise of authority.
- Testimony established that demolition extended into mid-1987, disproving petitioner’s claim that
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140420)
Procedural History
- Petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the April 21, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 41451.
- The Court of Appeals had set aside the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of respondents’ Complaint for damages and ordered Sergio Amonoy to pay P250,000 as actual damages.
- The CA Resolution of October 19, 1999 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise assailed.
Factual Background
- In Special Proceedings No. 3103 for the settlement of the estate of Julio Cantolos, six parcels in Tanay, Rizal were partitioned; two lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso Fornilda.
- Amonoy, as counsel, charged P27,600 in attorney’s fees, secured by a real estate mortgage on the two lots.
- After estate closure in August 1969, the heirs failed to pay; foreclosure was filed on January 21, 1970, and in September 1972 judgment favored Amonoy for P27,600 plus additional fees and value of harvests.
- The mortgaged lots were auctioned in February 1973 (confirmed May 1973) and in a subsequent sale to satisfy deficiency; Amonoy was the highest bidder in both.
- The Gutierrez spouses’ house stood on one of the foreclosed lots.
- Heirs filed Civil Case No. 18731 for annulment of foreclosure; dismissed by the CFI in 1977 and affirmed by the CA in 1981.
- On July 25, 1985, the CFI issued Writ of Possession and later Writ of Demolition orders; structures including the Gutierrez house were demolished beginning May 30, 1986.
- On June 2, 1986, the Supreme Court