Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Amonoy Vs Gutierez

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land that were mortgaged to Sergio Amonoy as payment for legal fees. When the fees were not paid, Amonoy foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the land. The heirs of one of the original owners, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda, sued questioning the validity of the mortgage. While the case was pending, Amonoy had the structures demolished, including the Gutierrez's house. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gutierrez, but their house had already been destroyed. The Court held that Amonoy abused his rights by continuing the demolition after receiving a temporary restraining order to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Amonoy Vs Gutierez

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    50 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land that were mortgaged to Sergio Amonoy as payment for legal fees. When the fees were not paid, Amonoy foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the land. The heirs of one of the original owners, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda, sued questioning the validity of the mortgage. While the case was pending, Amonoy had the structures demolished, including the Gutierrez's house. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gutierrez, but their house had already been destroyed. The Court held that Amonoy abused his rights by continuing the demolition after receiving a temporary restraining order to

    Original Title

    Amonoy vs Gutierez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land that were mortgaged to Sergio Amonoy as payment for legal fees. When the fees were not paid, Amonoy foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the land. The heirs of one of the original owners, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda, sued questioning the validity of the mortgage. While the case was pending, Amonoy had the structures demolished, including the Gutierrez's house. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gutierrez, but their house had already been destroyed. The Court held that Amonoy abused his rights by continuing the demolition after receiving a temporary restraining order to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views1 page

    Amonoy Vs Gutierez

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    This case involves a dispute over two parcels of land that were mortgaged to Sergio Amonoy as payment for legal fees. When the fees were not paid, Amonoy foreclosed on the mortgage and acquired the land. The heirs of one of the original owners, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda, sued questioning the validity of the mortgage. While the case was pending, Amonoy had the structures demolished, including the Gutierrez's house. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Gutierrez, but their house had already been destroyed. The Court held that Amonoy abused his rights by continuing the demolition after receiving a temporary restraining order to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    SERGIO AMONOY vs.

    Spouses JOSE GUTIERREZ and ANGELA FORNILDA

    There has been a settlement of the estate of the deceased Julio Cantolos, involving six (6)
    parcels of land. Amonoy was the counsel of therein Francisca Catolos, Agnes Catolos, Asuncion
    Pasamba and Alfonso Formilda. 2 of the said lots were adjudicated to Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso
    Formilda. The attorneys fees charged by Amonoy was P27,600.00 and Asuncion Pasamba and Alfonso
    Formilda executed a deed of real estate mortgage on the said two (2) lots adjudicated to them, in favor of
    Amonoy to secure the payment of his attorneys fees. Pasamba and Fornilda died leaving his heirs among
    of whom is the plaintiff-appellant Angela Gutierrez.

    Amonoy’s attorneys fees were not paid, so he filed for the foreclosure of the 2 parcels of land
    mortgage to him. Said land was acquired by Amonoy as the highest bidder during the auction sale. The
    heirs of Fornilda, the spouses Jose Gutierrez and Angela Fornilda then sued Amonoy questioning the
    validity of his mortgage agreement with Fornilda claiming that it was unconscionable. Constructed on the
    subject property was the house of spouses Guitierrez.
    A Writ of Possession was issued and pursuant to which a notice to vacate was made a Writ of
    Demolition were issued for the demolition of structures in the said lots, including the house of the
    Gutierrez spouses. Spouses filed a petition with the SC to which the court granted and ordered that the
    TRO be made permanent and the 6 parcels of land be returned to Gutierrez and others. But by the time
    the SC promulgated the above-mentioned Decision, respondent’s house had already been destroyed,
    supposedly in accordance with a Writ of Demolition ordered by the lower court. Thus, a Complaint for
    damages in connection with the destruction of their house was filed by respondents against petitioner. It is
    now the contention of Amonoy that he incurred no liability because he was merely exercising his right to
    demolish (pursuant to the demolition order) hence what happened was a case of damnum absque injuria
    (injury without damage).

    ISSUE: Whether or not Amonoy is correct.

    HELD: NO. Although the acts of petitioner may have been legally justified at the outset, their continuation
    after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an insidious abuse of his right. Indubitably, his actions were
    tainted with bad faith. Had he not insisted on completing the demolition, respondents would not have
    suffered the loss that engendered the suit before the RTC. Verily, his acts constituted not only an abuse
    of a right, but an invalid exercise of a right that had been suspended when he received the TRO from this
    Court on June 4, 1986. By then, he was no longer entitled to proceed with the demolition.

    As quoted by the Supreme Court: “The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it
    disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. ”

    What Amonoy did is an abuse of right. Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to
    as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise
    of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties. These standards are the following: to act with
    justice; to give everyone his due; recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise,
    the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is
    thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.

    Clearly then, the demolition of the spouses’s house by Amonoy, despite his receipt of the TRO,
    was not only an abuse but also an unlawful exercise of such right.

    You might also like