LINDA RANA v. TERESITA LEE WONG, GR No.

192861, 2014-06-30
FACTS:
Teresita Lee Wong (Wong) and Spouses Shirley and Ruben Ang Ong (Sps. Ong) are co-
owners pro-indiviso of a residential land
On the opposite side of the subject road, across the Wong-Ong property, are the
adjacent lots of Spouses Wilson and Rosarlo Uy (Sps. Uy) and Spouses Reynaldo and
Linda Rana (Sps. Rana)
The said lots follow a rolling terrain... with the Rana property standing about two (2)
meters... higher than and overlooking the Uy property, while the Wong-Ong property is
at the... same level with the subject road.
Sps. Rana elevated and cemented a portion of the subject road that runs between the
Rana and Wong-Ong properties (subject portion) in order to level the said portion with
their gate.
Sps. Rana likewise backfilled a portion... of the perimeter fence separating the Rana
and Uy properties without erecting a retaining wall that would hold the weight of the
added filling materials.
The matter was referred to the Office of the Barangay Captain of Lahug... as well as
the
Office of the Building Official of Cebu... but to no avail.
Wong, Sps. Ong, and Sps. Uy... filed a Complaint... for Abatement of Nuisance with
Damages against Sps. Rana before the RTC
Sps. Rana countered that prior to the construction of their residence, there was no
existing road and they merely developed the subject portion which abuts their gate in
view of the rolling terrain.
They claimed... that Wong and Sps. Ong do not have any need for the subject portion
because their property is facing an existing road
They likewise denied having undertaken any backfilling along the boundary of the Uy
property considering the natural elevation of... their own property, which renders
backfilling.unnecessary.
RTC granted Wong, et al.'s motion
Wong... proceeded to level the subject portion, which, in the process, hampered Sps.
Rana's ingress and egress to their residence, resulting too to the entrapment of their
vehicle... inside their garage.
Sps. Rana... filed a Supplemental Answer... praying for: (a) the restoration of the soil,
boulders, grade, contour, and level of the subject portion; and (b)... payment of moral
damages, actual and consequential damages, and exemplary damages.
Sps. Rana filed with another branch of the same trial court a Complaint... for Recovery
of Property and Damages against Sps. Uy
They alleged that... they caused a... resurvey of their property which purportedly
showed that Sps. Uy encroached upon an 11-square meter... portion along the
common boundary of their properties.
they prayed... that Sps. Uy be ordered to remove their fence along the common
boundary and return the encroached. portion
Sps. Uy filed an Answer with Counterclaim,... averring that prior to putting up their
fence, they caused a relocation survey of their property and were, thus, confident that
their fence did not encroach upon the Rana property.
RTC rendered a Decision
In Civil Case No. CEB-20893... the RTC found that: (a) Sps. Rana, without prior
consultation with the subdivision owner or their neighbors, developed to their sole
advantage the subject portion consisting of one-half of the width of the 10-meter
subject road by... introducing filling materials, and rip rapping the side of the road; (b)
the said act denied Wong and Sps. Ong the use of the subject portion and affected the
market value of their property; (c) Sps. Uy have no intention of using the subject
portion for ingress or... egress considering that they built a wall fronting the same;
and (d) Wong, et al.'s manner of enforcing the November 27, 1997 Order caused
damage and injury to Sps. Rana and amounted to bad faith.
RTC declared that the parties all... acted in bad faith, and, therefore, no relief can be
granted to them against each other.
Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. CEB-21296, the RTC,... dismissed both the... complaint
and counterclaim for damages because of the failure of both parties to substantiate
their respective claims of bad faith against each other.
Dissatisfied with the RTC's verdict, the parties filed separate appeals with the CA.
CA rendered a Decision... affirming the RTC.
ISSUES:
G.R. No. 192861
Rana... faults the RTC in (a) not finding Wong and Sps. Uy guilty of malice and bad
faith both in instituting Civil Case No. CEB-20893 and in erroneously implementing
the November 27, 1997 Order,... -and (b) failing or refusing to grant the reliefs initially
prayed for, among others, the reconveyance of the encroached property.
G.R. No. 192862
Wong... fault the RTC in (a) applying the in pari delicto doctrine against them and
failing to abate the nuisance... which still continues and actually exists as Sps. Rana
caused... the same to be reconstructed and restored to their prejudice,... and (b) not
finding Sps. Rana guilty of bad faith in instituting Civil Case No. CEB-21296 and
ordering them to pay damages to petitioners Wong, et al.
RULING:
Civil Case No. CEB-20893
For Abatement of Nuisance and Damages.
Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance is defined as "any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or
endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3)
Shocks, defies or... disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with
the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) Hinders
or impairs the use of property."
Article 695 of the Civil Code classifies nuisances with respect to the object or objects
that they affect. In this regard, a nuisance may either be: (a) a public nuisance (or one
which "affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons,
although the... extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be
unequal"); or (b) a private nuisance (or one "that is not included in the foregoing
definition" [or, as case law puts it, one which "violates only private rights and produces
damages to but one or a few... persons"]).
Jurisprudence further classifies nuisances in relation to their legal susceptibility to
summary abatement (that is, corrective action without prior judicial permission). In
this regard, a nuisance "may either be: (a) a nuisance per se (or one which "affects the
immediate... safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the
undefined law of necessity");... or (b) a nuisance per accidens (or that which "depends
upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact,
it... cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide
whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.")
It is a standing jurisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may
not be summarily abated.
Aside from the remedy of summary abatement which should be taken under the
parameters stated in Articles 704.
(for public nuisances) and 706
(for private nuisances) of the Civil Code, a private person whose property right was...
invaded or unreasonably interfered with by the act, omission, establishment, business
or condition of the property of another may file a civil action to recover personal
damages.
In the present cases, Wong, et al. availed of the remedy of judicial abatement and
damages against Sps. Rana, claiming that both the elevated and cemented subject
portion and the subject backfilling are "nuisances" caused/created by the latter
which... curtailed their use and enjoyment of their properties.
With respect to the elevated and cemented subject portion, the Court finds that the
same is not a nuisance per se.
By its nature, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the community. It was built
primarily to facilitate the ingress and egress of Sps. Rana... from their house which
was admittedly located on a higher elevation than the subject road and the adjoining
Uy, and Wong-Ong properties.
Since the subject portion is not a nuisance per se... but actually a nuisance per
accidens... it cannot... be summarily abated.
As such, Wong, et al. 's demolition of Sps. Rana's subject portion, which was not
sanctioned under the RTC's
Order... remains unwarranted.
Resultantly, damages ought to be awarded in favor of Sps. Rana
Sps. Rana's entitlement to the above-mentioned damages, however, only stands in
theory. This is because the actual award thereof is precluded by the damage they
themselves have caused Wong, et al. in view of their construction of the subject
portion.
As the records... establish, Sps. Rana, without prior consultation with Wong, et al. and
to their sole advantage, elevated and cemented almost half... of the 10-meter wide
subject road.
As homeowners of Peace Valley Subdivision, Wong, et al. maintain the... rights to the
unobstructed use of and free passage over the subject road.
By constructing the subject portion, Sps. Rana introduced a nuisance per accidens
that particularly transgressed the aforesaid rights. Thus, for the vindication and
recognition of Wong, et al.
's rights, Sps. Rana should be similarly held liable for nominal damages.
Inapplicability of the in Pari Delicto Principle
The principle of in pari delicto provides that when two parties are equally at fault, the
law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them. However, this
principle does not apply with respect to inexistent and void contracts.
Clearly, no void or inexistent contract is herein at issue, hence, the Court's
disagreement with the CA's invocation of Yu Guan in this respect.
As for the subject backfilling touching the perimeter fence of the Uy property, records
show that the said fence was not designed to act as a retaining wall... but merely to
withhold windload and its own load.
Both the RTC... and the CA found the subject backfilling to have added pressure on
the fence,... consequently endangering the safety of the occupants of the Uy property
With these findings, the Court thus... agrees with the courts a quo that there is a need
for Linda Rana to construct a retaining wall... which would bear the weight and
pressure of the filling materials introduced on their property.
B. Civil Case No. CEB-21296 For Recovery of Property.
Court finds that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal thereof considering that
it was determined that Sps. Uy had actually encroached upon the Rana property to
the extent of 2 sq. m.
Settled is the rule that in order that an action for the recovery of property may
prosper, the party prosecuting the same need only prove the identity of the thing and
his ownership thereof.
In the present cases, the report... of... the court-appointed commissioner... identified
and delineated the boundaries of the two properties and showed that Sps. Uy's
perimeter fence intruded on 2 sq. m. of the
Rana property.
Having sufficiently... proven their claim, Sps. Rana are, therefore entitled to the return
of the 2 sq.m. encroached portion.
Claims Common to Both Civil Case No. CEB-20893 and Civil Case No. CEB-21296:
Malicious Prosecution of Both Cases, Moral and Exemplary Damages, Attorney's Fees,
and Litigation Expenses.
Similarly,. the Court deems that an award of exemplary damages would be
inappropriate since these damages are imposed only "by way of example or correction
for the public good, in addition to the moral, tempe rate, liquidated or compensatory
damages."
Bluntly placed, the Court does not view the present matters of such caliber. Hence,
there is no reason to grant the parties' claims for the same.