Case Summary (G.R. No. 159224)
Applicable Law
The decision is based on the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, relevant Civil Code provisions regarding damages, as well as the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 34 concerning summary judgments.
Factual Background
The factual backdrop of the case involves property disputes following the intended construction of a four-door, two-storey apartment by the respondents on their property at No. 74 Hyacinth Street. Jose M. Ontimare, Sr., the adjacent property owner at No. 72, opposed this construction by initially seeking to prevent the issuance of a building permit, appealing to the Building Official of Quezon City under the claim that the new firewall would diminish ventilation and market value of his property. Despite a temporarily issued Cease and Desist Order, construction resumed after the respondents clarified that they intended to build a one-sided firewall.
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City eventually ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding them significant damages for unrealized rental income and property damage caused reportedly by Ontimare, Sr.'s threats and actions that impeded construction efforts. The RTC's summary judgment ordered Ontimare Sr. to pay monthly damages and additionally awarded compensation for damages to the respondents' wood parquet floors and other aspects of their property.
Issues for Resolution
The Supreme Court identified two primary questions: whether the summary judgment against the defendant was proper, and whether the petitioners were liable for the damages awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Summary Judgment Analysis
Regarding the summary judgment, the petitioners contended that it was improperly rendered against the moving party, given the existence of disputed facts. They argued that under the applicable rules, such judgment could only be granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact. The petitioners maintained that Ontimare, Sr. was wrongfully denied a trial to address these disputes. However, the Supreme Court found that the RTC's decision, while termed a summary judgment, effectively resulted from a full trial process with evidence and witness testimonies considered. Thus, it held that the RTC's ruling was akin to a judgment on the merits, thereby rendering the procedural objections invalid.
Evaluation of Liability for Damages
The petitioners further contended that any compensated damages should start from the date the respondents secured a locational clearance, which they believed was on July 16, 1996, thereby contesting the period allowed for unearned rental income and expenses. Furthermore, they asserted Ontimare, Sr.'s lack of bad faith and thus questioned the imposition of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159224)
Case Overview
- This case involves a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 18, 2003, which affirmed with modifications the Regional Trial Court's Summary Judgment dated July 11, 2000.
- The petitioners, Jose D. Ontimare, Jr. and Rene D. Ontimare, represent their deceased father, Jose M. Ontimare, Sr.
- The respondents are spouses Renato and Rosario Elep, who sought damages due to the actions of Ontimare Sr. that adversely affected their construction project.
Factual Background
- Ontimare Sr. and the Eleps were neighbors in Quezon City, with Ontimare Sr. owning the property at No. 72 Hyacinth Street and the Eleps at No. 74.
- The Eleps applied for a building permit to construct a two-storey, four-door apartment in December 1995.
- Ontimare Sr. opposed the construction, filing a complaint with the Building Official, claiming the firewall would harm his property’s ventilation and market value.
- Despite the issuance of a building permit to the Eleps on January 8, 1996, a Cease and Desist Order was issued shortly thereafter but was lifted when the Eleps clarified their construction plans.
- Ontimare Sr. filed a Notarial Prohibition and continued to oppose the construction, which led to further hearings and ultimately dismissed complaints against the Eleps.
- Tension escalated on July 15, 1996, when Ontimare Sr. threatened the Eleps' workers with a shotgun, preventing them from completing the plastering of the firewall.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The Eleps filed an action for da