Custodio vs. CA

SPOUSES CRISTINO and BRIGIDA CUSTODIO and constructed by Petitioners Santoses along their
SPOUSES LITO and MARIA CRISTINA SANTOS, vs. property which is also along the first passageway.
COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO C. MABASA Petitioner Morato constructed her adobe fence and
even extended said fence in such a way that the
G.R. No. 116100 February 9, 1996 entire passageway was enclosed. And it was then
that the remaining tenants of said apartment
REGALADO, J.: vacated the area.
• Petitionert Ma. Cristina Santos testified that she
FACTS: constructed said fence because of some other
inconveniences of having (at) the front of her house
a pathway such as when some of the tenants were
• The respondent (Pacifico Mabasa) owns a parcel of drunk and would bang their doors and windows.
land with a two-door apartment erected thereon
situated at Interior P. Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas,
• Trial court rendered a decision ordering the
Tagig, Metro Manila. Said property may be described Petitioners Custodios and Santoses to give
to be surrounded by other immovables pertaining to Respondent Mabasa permanent access ingress and
respondents herein egress, to the public street and Mabasa to pay the
Custodios and Santoses the sum of Eight Thousand
• As an access to P. Burgos Street from respondent’s Pesos (P8,000) as indemnity for the permanent use
property, there are two possible passageways. The of the passageway.
first passageway is approximately one meter wide
and is about 20 meters distan(t) from Mabasa's
• Respondent Mabasa went to the CA raising the sole
residence to P. Burgos Street. Such path is passing issue of whether or not the lower court erred in not
in between the previously mentioned row of houses awarding damages in their favor. The CA rendered
of the petitioners The second passageway is about 3 its decision affirming the judgment of the trial court
meters in width and length from Mabasa's residence with modification only insofar as the. grant of
to P. Burgos Street; it is about 26 meters. In passing damages to Mabasa The motion for reconsideration
thru said passageway, a less than a meter wide path filed by the petitioners was denied.
through the septic tank and with 5-6 meters in
length, has to be traversed. ISSUE: WON the grant of right of way to herein private
respondent Mabasa is proper.
• When said property was purchased by Mabasa, there
were tenants occupying the remises and who were
acknowledged by Mabasa as tenants. However, WON the award of damages is in order.
sometime in February, 1982, one of said tenants
vacated the apartment and when Mabasa went to HELD:
see the premises, he saw that there had been built
an adobe fence in the first passageway making it * 1st issue:
narrower in width. Said adobe fence was first
Zenaida Resuma Razon

Property
Right To Enclose
• With respect to the first issue, herein petitioners are • In the case at bar, although there was damage,
already barred from raising the same. Petitioners did there was no legal injury. The act of petitioners in
not appeal from the decision of the court a quo constructing a fence within their lot is a valid
granting private respondents the right of way, hence exercise of their right as owners, hence not contrary
they are presumed to be satisfied with the to morals, good customs or public policy. The law
adjudication therein. With the finality of the recognizes in the owner the right to enjoy and
judgment of the trial court as to petitioners, the dispose of a thing, without other limitations than
issue of propriety of the grant of right of way has those established by law. It is within the right of
already been laid to rest. petitioners, as owners, to enclose and fence
their property. Article 430 of the Civil Code
* 2nd issue: NO provides that "(e)very owner may enclose or
fence his land or tenements by means of walls,
ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other
• A reading of the decision of the CA will show that the
means without detriment to servitudes
award of damages was based solely on the fact that
constituted thereon."
the original plaintiff, Pacifico Mabasa, incurred losses
• At the time of the construction of the fence, the lot
in the form of unrealized rentals when the tenants
was not subject to any servitudes. There was no
vacated the leased premises by reason of the closure
easement of way existing in favor of private
of the passageway.However, the mere fact that the
respondents, either by law or by contract. The fact
plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right
that private respondents had no existing right over
to recover damages.
the said passageway is confirmed by the very
• There is a material distinction between damages and decision of the trial court granting a compulsory right
injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; of way in their favor after payment of just
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from compensation.
the injury; and damages are the recompense or
• Hence, prior to said decision, petitioners had an
compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
absolute right over their property and their act of
Thus, there can be damage without injury in those
fencing and enclosing the same was an act which
instances in which the loss or harm was not the
they may lawfully perform in the employment and
result of a violation of a legal duty. (damnum absque
exercise of said right. To repeat, whatever injury or
injuria). In order that a plaintiff may maintain an
damage may have been sustained by private
action for the injuries of which he complains, he
respondents by reason of the rightful use of the said
must establish that such injuries resulted from a
land by petitioners is damnum absque injuria.
breach of duty which the defendant owed to the
plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and
legal responsibility by the person causing it
(damnum et injuria.)
Zenaida Resuma Razon

Property
Right To Enclose

Custodio vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Custodio vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Custodio vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES CRISTINO and BRIGIDA CUSTODIO and constructed by Petitioners Santoses along their

Zenaida Resuma Razon

Zenaida Resuma Razon

You might also like