Republic of the Philippines defendants, jointly and severally, to pay

SUPREME COURT plaintiff the following:

Manila
1. P150,000.00 by way of moral
THIRD DIVISION damages;

G.R. No. 161188             June 13, 2008 2. P30,000.00 by way of exemplary

damages;
Heirs of PURISIMA NALA, represented by their
attorney-in-fact EFEGENIA DIGNA 3. P20,000.00 as and for reasonable
DUYAN, petitioners, attorney's fees and other litigation
vs. expenses; and
ARTEMIO CABANSAG, respondent.
4. to pay the costs.
DECISION
SO ORDERED.5
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Nala and Atty. Del Prado appealed to the CA. The
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules herein assailed CA Decision dated December 19,
of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) 2002 affirmed the RTC Decision with modification,
Decision1 dated December 19, 2002 and thus:
Resolution2 dated October 28, 2003, dismissing
petitioners' appeal and affirming with modification the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated August 10, instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The
1994 rendered in Civil Case No. Q-91-10541. assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 93, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-
The facts of the case are as follows: 91-10541 is heretofore AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Defendants-appellants are
Artemio Cabansag (respondent) filed Civil Case No. ordered to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-
Q-91-10541 for damages in October 1991. According appellee the amount of P30,000.00 by way of
to respondent, he bought a 50-square meter property moral damages. It is further ordered to pay
from spouses Eugenio Gomez, Jr. and Felisa Duyan him exemplary damages in the amount
Gomez on July 23, 1990. Said property is part of a of P10,000.00 and P10,000.00, attorney's
400-square meter lot registered in the name of the fees.
Gomez spouses. In October 1991, he received a
demand letter from Atty. Alexander del Prado (Atty. SO ORDERED.6
Del Prado), in behalf of Purisima Nala (Nala), asking
for the payment of rentals from 1987 to 1991 until he In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA took note of the
leaves the premises, as said property is owned by Decision dated September 5, 1994 rendered by the
Nala, failing which criminal and civil actions will be RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, dismissing Civil
filed against him. Another demand letter was sent on Case No. 91-8821, an action for reconveyance of real
May 14, 1991. Because of such demands, respondent property and cancellation of TCT No. 281115 with
suffered damages and was constrained to file the damages, filed by Nala against spouses Gomez.7
case against Nala and Atty. Del Prado.3
Hence, herein petition by the heirs of Nala
Atty. Del Prado claimed that he sent the demand (petitioners)8 with the following assignment of errors:
letters in good faith and that he was merely acting in
behalf of his client, Nala, who disputed respondent's a) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not
claim of ownership. Nala alleged that said property is considering the right of Purisima Nala to
part of an 800-square meter property owned by her assert her rights and interest over the
late husband, Eulogio Duyan, which was property.
subsequently divided into two parts. The 400-square
meter property was conveyed to spouses Gomez in a
b) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not
fictitious deed of sale, with the agreement that it will
considering the Decision rendered by the
be merely held by them in trust for the Duyan's
Court of Appeals in the case for reconveyance
children. Said property is covered by Transfer
which upheld the rights and interest of
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 281115 in the name of
Purisima Nala and her children over a certain
spouses Gomez. Nala also claimed that respondent is
parcel of land, a portion of which is subject of
only renting the property which he occupies.4
the present case.
After trial, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 93,
c) Respondent Court of Appeals erred in
rendered its Decision on August 10, 1994, in favor of
awarding damages and attorney's fees without
respondent. The dispositive portion of the Decision
any basis.9
provides:
Atty. Del Prado filed a motion for extension of time to
WHEREFORE, premises considered, by
file his separate petition but it was denied by the Court
preponderance of evidence, the Court finds in
per its Resolution dated January 19, 2004 issued in
favor of the plaintiff and hereby orders the
G.R. No. 160829.
Petitioners argue that their predecessor-in-interest partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will
had every right to protect and assert her interests over or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies
the property. Nala had no knowledge that the property an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.13
was sold by spouses Gomez to respondent when the
demand letters were sent. What she was aware of In the present case, there is nothing on record which
was the fact that spouses Gomez were managing the will prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del Prado,
rentals on the property by virtue of the implied trust acted in bad faith or malice in sending the demand
created between them and Eulogio Duyan. When letters to respondent. In the first place, there was
spouses Gomez failed to remit the rentals and ground for Nala's actions since she believed that the
claimed ownership of the property, it was then that property was owned by her husband Eulogio Duyan
Nala decided to procure the services of legal counsel and that respondent was illegally occupying the same.
to protect their rights over the property. She had no knowledge that spouses Gomez violated
the trust imposed on them by Eulogio and
Petitioners also contend that it was error for the CA to surreptitiously sold a portion of the property to
take note of the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 91- respondent. It was only after respondent filed the
8821 without further noting that the CA had already case for damages against Nala that she learned of
reversed and set aside said RTC Decision and such sale. The bare fact that respondent claims
ordered reconveyance of the property to Nala and her ownership over the property does not give rise to the
children in a Decision dated March 8, 2000 rendered conclusion that the sending of the demand letters by
in CA-G.R. CV No. 49163. Petitioners also argue that Nala was done in bad faith. Absent any evidence
respondent did not substantiate his claim for presented by respondent, bad faith or malice could
damages. not be attributed to petitioner since Nala was only
trying to protect their interests over the property.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that both the RTC and
the CA failed to indicate the particular provision of law Moreover, respondent failed to show that Nala and
under which it held petitioners liable for damages. Atty. Del Prado's acts were done with the sole
Nevertheless, based on the allegations in intention of prejudicing and injuring him. It may be true
respondent's complaint, it may be gathered that the that respondent suffered mental anguish, serious
basis for his claim for damages is Article 19 of the anxiety and sleepless nights when he received the
Civil Code, which provides: demand letters; however, there is a material
distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of legal invasion of a legal right while damage is the hurt,
his rights and in the performance of his duties, loss or harm which results from the injury.14 Thus,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and there can be damage without injury in those instances
observe honesty and good faith. in which the loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the
The foregoing provision sets the standards which may consequences must be borne by the injured person
be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights alone; the law affords no remedy for damages
but also in the performance of one's duties. When a resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal
right is exercised in a manner which does not conform injury or wrong. These situations are often
with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in called damnum absque injuria.15
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held Nala was acting well within her rights when she
responsible. But a right, though by itself legal because instructed Atty. Del Prado to send the demand letters.
recognized or granted by law as such, may She had to take all the necessary legal steps to
nevertheless become the source of some illegality. A enforce her legal/equitable rights over the property
person should be protected only when he acts in the occupied by respondent. One who makes use of his
legitimate exercise of his right; that is, when he acts own legal right does no injury.16 Thus, whatever
with prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts damages are suffered by respondent should be borne
with negligence or abuse. There is an abuse of right solely by him.
when it is exercised only for the purpose of
prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of a right Nala's acts in protecting her rights over the property
must be in accordance with the purpose for which it find further solid ground in the fact that the property
was established, and must not be excessive or unduly has already been ordered reconveyed to her and her
harsh; there must be no intention to injure another. [10] heirs. In its Decision dated March 8, 2000 in CA-G.R.
CV No. 49163, the CA reversed and set aside the
In order to be liable for damages under the abuse of RTC's Decision and ordered the reconveyance of the
rights principle, the following requisites must concur: property to petitioners, and TCT No. 281115 was
(a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is declared canceled. Said CA Decision was affirmed by
exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of this Court in its Decision dated March 18, 2005 in
prejudicing or injuring another.11 G.R. No. 144148, which became final and executory
on July 27, 2005.
It should be stressed that malice or bad faith is at the
core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith is WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
presumed, and he who alleges bad faith has the duty Decision dated December 19, 2002 and Resolution
to prove the same.12 Bad faith, on the other hand, dated October 28, 2003 rendered by the Court of
does not simply connote bad judgment to simple Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 48580 are NULLIFIED.
negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy Civil Case No. Q-91-10541 is DISMISSED for lack of
and conscious doing of a wrong, or a breach of known merit.
duty due to some motives or interest or ill will that
 Costs against respondent. 4
 Id. at 41-47.

SO ORDERED. 5
 CA rollo, p. 55.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ 6

 Id. at 146-147.
Associate Justice
7
 Id. at 144-145.

8
 Nala was substituted by petitioners after her
death on January 28, 2002.
WE CONCUR:
9
 Rollo, p. 10.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice  Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
10

Chairperson Corporation Limited v. Catalan, G.R. No.

159590, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 498,
NITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO RUBEN T. REYES 511.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
 Far East Bank and Trust Company v.
11

*ARTURO D. BRION Pacilan, Jr., G.R. No. 157314, July 29, 2005,
Associate Justice 465 SCRA 372, 382.

 Saber v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

12

132981, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 259,

278.
ATTESTATION
13
 Id. at 278-279.
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's  Lagon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
14

Division. 119107, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 616,

627-628.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice  Diaz v. Davao Light and Power Co., Inc.,
15

Chairperson, Third Division G.R. No. 160959, April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA
481, 509-510.

 Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. Court of

16

Appeals, 346 Phil. 143, 154 (1997).

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution

and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

* In Lieu of Justice Antonio Eduardo B.

Nachura, per Special Order No. 507 dated
May 28, 2008.

1
 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V.
Cosico, with Associate Justices Rebecca de
Guia-Salvador and Regalado E. Maambong,
concurring; rollo, pp. 23-30.

2
 Id. at 32-33.

3
 Rollo, pp. 35-37.