Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Custodio vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 116100
Decision Date
Feb 9, 1996
Petitioners fenced property, blocking access to respondents' land. Court granted right of way but denied damages, ruling no legal injury or abuse of rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116100)

Procedural History Below

– 1982: Mabasa filed for compulsory easement of right of way against petitioners before RTC-Pasig.
– Pacífico Mabasa died during litigation; substituted by spouse and children.
– 1990: RTC granted the right of way, ordered petitioners to allow permanent ingress and egress, and awarded Mabasa P 8,000 as indemnity.
– 1993: CA affirmed the easement but increased damages to P 65,000 actual, P 30,000 moral, and P 10,000 exemplary.

Issues on Certiorari

  1. Whether petitioners are estopped or barred from contesting the grant of right of way.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals properly awarded damages.

Bar to Relitigation of Easement Grant

Petitioners did not appeal the RTC’s decision on the right of way. Under the rule that an appellee who does not appeal cannot secure affirmative relief beyond the lower court’s grant, the easement adjudication became final as to petitioners. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to revisit the propriety of the compulsory easement.

Legal Basis for Damages Award

Damages require both (a) a wrongful or injurious act (injuria) and (b) actual loss or harm (damnum). Mere loss, absent a violation of a legal duty, is damnum absque injuria and does not support recovery.

Application to the Case

Petitioners lawfully exercised their ownership right by enclosing their land. No preexisting servitude or legal duty forbade such fencing. Prior to the RTC’s compulsory easement order, petitioners had absolute dominion over their property. Tenant losses from being unable to use the narrow passage were incidental

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.