Case Summary (G.R. No. 116100)
Petitioner(s) and Respondent(s)
Petitioners are owners of lots adjacent to the parcel purchased by Pacifico Mabasa. Private respondents are the owners/heirs of the parcel seeking access to the public street. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court of Pasig are the judicial respondents in the review.
Procedural History
Civil Case No. 47466 was filed on August 26, 1982 for the grant of an easement of right of way. Pacifico Mabasa died during trial and was substituted by his spouse and heirs. The RTC rendered judgment on February 27, 1990 ordering the defendants (petitioners) to give permanent ingress and egress and ordering the plaintiff to pay P8,000 as indemnity for permanent use of the passageway. The private respondents appealed; the Court of Appeals, on November 10, 1993, affirmed the RTC’s judgment but modified it by awarding actual damages of P65,000, moral damages of P30,000, and exemplary damages of P10,000. The CA denied reconsideration on July 8, 1994. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.
Facts Found by the Trial Court
The court found that the Mabasa property was located behind the petitioners’ houses, with two possible passageways to P. Burgos Street: (1) a first passageway approximately one meter wide and about 20 meters from Mabasa’s residence to the street, passing between the row of houses; and (2) a second passageway about three meters wide and approximately 26 meters long but including a narrow path through a septic tank. When Mabasa purchased the lot in September 1981, tenants occupied the premises. In February 1982, upon vacancy of one tenant, petitioners’ spouses constructed an adobe fence along the first passageway and defendant Morato extended her fence so that the entire passageway became enclosed. After the fencing, the remaining tenants vacated, allegedly causing loss of rental income to Mabasa. Petitioners defended the fence construction on grounds of safety, privacy, and nuisance.
Trial Court Ruling
The RTC ordered petitioners to provide plaintiff permanent access (ingress and egress) to the public street and ordered the plaintiff to pay petitioners the sum of P8,000 as indemnity for the permanent use of the passageway. Each party was to shoulder its respective litigation expenses.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s grant of a right of way but modified the monetary relief by awarding the plaintiffs P65,000 as actual damages, P30,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages. The remainder of the RTC decision was affirmed.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Two issues were raised: (1) whether the grant of a right of way to private respondents was proper; and (2) whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals was proper.
Waiver and Finality as to the Right of Way
The Supreme Court held that petitioners were barred from contesting the propriety of the grant of right of way because they failed to appeal from the RTC decision granting that relief. Since petitioners did not appeal, the RTC judgment became final as to them, and they could not seek affirmative relief beyond what the RTC had granted. The appellate principle invoked is that an appellee who does not appeal cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief beyond that granted by the lower court; such appellee may only defend the lower court judgment.
Legal Principles Governing Recovery of Damages
The Court reiterated the fundamental requirement that recovery of damages presupposes both (a) a legal wrong (injury, damnum et injuria) and (b) resulting damage. Mere loss or inconvenience without violation of a legal duty is damnum absque injuria and does not give rise to a cause of action. Tort damages rest on the premise of a legal injury—there must be breach of duty and imposition of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded. The Court referenced established treatises and jurisprudence to underscore that injury and damage must concur and that hardship resulting from lawful acts causing incidental damage to another generally affords no remedy.
Application of Principles to the Present Case
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that although private respondents suffered loss (unrealized rentals), there was no legal injury prior to the RTC’s grant of easement. Petitioners’ construction of a fence within their lot was a lawful exercise of ownership and not inherently contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Article 430 of the Civil Code allows an owner to enclose or fence his land without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon; and Article 21’s doctrine on abuse of rights requires that acts be willful and contrary to morals, good customs or public p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116100)
Case Citation and Participating Justices
- Reported at 323 Phil. 575, Second Division; G.R. No. 116100; Decision dated February 09, 1996.
- Decision penned by Justice Regalado, J.
- Justices Romero and Puno concurred.
- Justice Mendoza took no part.
Parties and Posture
- Petitioners: Spouses Cristino and Brigida Custodio and Spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos.
- Private respondents / original plaintiff: Pacifico C. Mabasa (deceased during pendency) substituted by Ofelia Mabasa, his surviving spouse, and children; referenced also as heirs of Pacifico C. Mabasa.
- Other respondent: Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 181 (trial court that handled the case after assignment to Branch 22).
- Relief sought below: grant of an easement of right of way (Civil Case No. 47466 filed August 26, 1982).
Chronology of Proceedings
- August 26, 1982: Civil Case No. 47466 filed by Pacifico Mabasa for grant of an easement of right of way against the petitioners and others; assigned to Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 22.
- During pendency: Original plaintiff Pacifico Mabasa died; substitution by Ofelia Mabasa and children.
- February 27, 1990: Trial court rendered judgment granting permanent access (ingress and egress) and ordering plaintiff to pay defendants the sum of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000) as indemnity for the permanent use of the passageway; each party to shoulder respective litigation expenses.
- Appeal by plaintiff/heirs to the Court of Appeals challenging only the failure of the trial court to award damages in their favor.
- November 10, 1993: Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court decision and awarded damages (actual, moral, exemplary) to plaintiffs-appellants.
- July 8, 1994: Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- February 09, 1996: Supreme Court decision in the present petition for review on certiorari reversing the Court of Appeals’ award of damages and reinstating the trial court judgment.
Facts as Found by the Trial Court (and Adopted by the Court of Appeals)
- Subject Property:
- Plaintiff owned a parcel of land with a two-door apartment erected thereon, located at Interior P. Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas, Taguig, Metro Manila.
- Plaintiff acquired the property by contract of sale with spouses Mamerto Rayos and Teodora Quintero in September 1981.
- The property was surrounded by other immovables belonging to defendants.
- Spatial arrangement and possible access to P. Burgos Street:
- Using P. Burgos Street as reference: on the left side, proceeding to plaintiff’s property: houses of defendants Cristino and Brigida Custodio, then Lito and Maria Cristina Santos, then Ofelia Mabasa (plaintiff).
- On the right side: defendant Rosalina Morato and then a Septic Tank (Exhibit "D").
- Two possible passageways from plaintiff’s property to P. Burgos Street:
- First passageway: approximately one meter wide and about 20 meters from Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Street; passes between the row of houses.
- Second passageway: about 3 meters in width and about 26 meters in length; in traversing it, a less-than-a-meter-wide path through the septic tank and about 5–6 meters in length had to be traversed.
- Occupancy and fence construction:
- At time of purchase, tenants occupied the premises and were acknowledged by plaintiff as tenants.
- Sometime in February 1982, one tenant vacated; upon inspection plaintiff found an adobe fence built in the first passageway narrowing it.
- Adobe fence initially constructed by defendants Santoses along their property adjacent to the first passageway.
- Defendant Morato later constructed and extended her adobe fence such that the entire passageway was enclosed (evidence: Exhibit "1-Santoses and Custodios," Exhibit "D" for plaintiff, Exhibits "1-C," "1-D," and "I-E").
- After enclosure of the passageway, remaining tenants vacated the apartment.
- Testimony and stated motivations for fencing:
- Defendant Maria Cristina Santos testified she constructed the fence because of an incident where her daughter was dragged by a bicycle ridden by a son of one of the tenants using the first passageway; she also mentioned other inconveniences of having a pathway in front of her house, including tenants being drunk and banging doors and windows and loss of footwear.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Two issues were raised by petitioners in the petition for review on certiorari:
- Whether the grant of right of way to private respondents (heirs of Pacifico Mabasa) is proper.
- Whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals in favor of private respondents is in order.
Threshold Ruling on the First Issue (Right of Way)
- Petitioners were barred from raising the propriety of the grant of right of way:
- Petitioners did not appeal from the trial court decision that granted private respondents a right of way; by failing to appeal they are presumed satisfied with that adjudication.
- The judgment of the trial court became final as against petitioners and could no longer be reviewed or reversed by the Supreme Court on that point.
- Rule cited and applied: when an appeal is taken in a civil case, an appellee who has not himself appealed may not obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than what was granted in the decision of the lower court; appellee may only advance arguments to defeat the appellant’s claim or to uphold the decision being disputed. Assigned errors by an appellee can only be considered to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds, no