Chapter 2 – Human Relations

Article 19 – Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith

Principle of Damnum Absque Injuria – Latin for “Loss or damage without injury”

Spouses Custodio v. Court of Appeals

FACTS:
On August 26, 1982, Pacifico Mabasa filed a civil case for the grant of an easement of right of way against
Cristino Custodio, Brigida Custodio, Rosalina Morato, Lito Santos and Maria Christina C. Santos.

Mabasa owns a parcel of land with a two-door apartment. The property is surrounded by other
immovables pertaining to the defendants. When Mabasa bought the land, there were tenants who were
occupying the property. One of the tenants vacated the land. There were two passageway going to the
property from the public street. When Mabasa visited the place he saw that there had been built in abode
fence in the apartment in the first passageway that made it narrower. The fence was constructed by the
Santoses. Morato also constructed her fence and extended it to the entire passageway, therefore, the
passageway was enclosed. And it was then that the remaining tenant vacated the area.

The case was brought to the trial court and ordered the Custodios and the Santoses to give Mabasa a
permanent ingress and egress to the public street and asked Mabasa to pay Custodios and Santoses for
damages. The plaintiff not satisfied with the decision went to the Court of Appeals raising the sole issue
of whether or not the lower court erred in not awarding damages in their favor. On Nov. 10, 1993, the CA
rendered a decision affirming the judgment of the trial court with modification, CA ordered the
defendants-appellees to pay the plaintiff-appellants the sum of 65,000 as Actual Damages (loss rent),
30,000 as Moral Damages and 10,000 for exemplary damages. The petitioner appealed for motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the CA. Hence, the case is brought to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the award of damages is in order

RULING.
The Supreme Court ruled that the award of damages is not in order, the CA is erred in awarding damages
to private respondents. The award of damages has no substantial legal basis. A reading from the CA ruling
showed that the basis for such was on the incurred losses in the form of unrealized rentals when the
tenants vacated the leased premises due to the closure of passageway. However, the mere fact that the
plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages. 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 therefrom. 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.

In other word, in order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act must be not only
hurtful, but wrongful. If a person sustains actual damage, that is, harm or loss to his person or property,
without sustaining any legal injury, that is, an act or omission which the law does not deem an injury, the
damage is regarded as damnum absque injuria.

Contrary to the claim of private respondent, the petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle
of abuse of right1. The act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their
right as owners, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. A person has a right to the
natural use and enjoyment of his own property, according to his pleasure, for all the purposes to which
such property is usually applied. During construction of fence the lot was not subject to any servitudes.
The right only came in the decision of the trial court, after giving compensation to the plaintiff. As a general
rule, therefore, there is no cause of action for acts done by one person upon his own property in a lawful
and proper manner, although such acts incidentally cause damage or an unavoidable loss to another, as
such damage or loss is damnum absque injuria. When the owner of property makes use thereof in the
general and ordinary manner in which the property is used, such as fencing or enclosing the same as in
this case, nobody can complain of having been injured, because the inconvenience arising from said use
can be considered as a mere consequence of community life.

1
Art. 21 of the Civil Code (acts contrary to morals) can be applied if, it is essential that the following requisites
concur: (1) The defendant should have acted in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy;
(2) The acts should be willful; and (3) There was damage or injury to plaintiff.