Custodio v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a claim for an easement of right of way. Pacifico Mabasa, the original plaintiff, owned a parcel of land with a two-door apartment. His property was surrounded by the properties of the defendants, including spouses Cristino and Brigida Custodio, and spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos. Mabasa alleged that after purchasing the property, an adobe fence was constructed by the Santoses and Morato, narrowing and enclosing a passageway that served as his access to P. Burgos Street. This led to the tenants vacating the apartment. 2. Procedural History: Civil Case No. 47466 for the grant of an easement of right of way was filed by Pacifico Mabasa against the Custodios, Santoses, and Rosalina Morato before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. During the pendency of the case, Mabasa died and was substituted by his heirs. The RTC rendered a decision on February 27, 1990, ordering the defendants Custodios and Santoses to provide permanent access and ordering the plaintiff to pay P8,000 as indemnity. The heirs of Mabasa appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), raising the issue of damages. The CA, in its decision of November 10, 1993, affirmed the RTC decision with modification, awarding P65,000 as Actual Damages, P30,000 as Moral Damages, and P10,000 as Exemplary Damages. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on July 8, 1994. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, spouses Cristino and Brigida Custodio and spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They assail the decision of the Court of Appeals, raising two main issues: (1) whether the grant of the right of way to the private respondents is proper, and (2) whether the award of damages is in order. The petitioners argue that they are barred from raising the first issue as they did not appeal the RTC's decision granting the right of way. Regarding the second issue, they contend that the CA erred in awarding damages because, while there was damage, there was no legal injury, as their act of fencing their property was a lawful exercise of their ownership rights and did not violate any legal duty owed to the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the grant of a right of way to the private respondents is proper. Whether the award of damages by the Court of Appeals is in order; and whether the petitioners violated the principle of abuse of right, resulting in damnum absque injuria.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court. The Court ruled that the award of damages by the CA had no substantial legal basis.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the grant of right of way: The petitioners are barred from raising this issue as they did not appeal the trial court's decision granting the right of way. An appellee who has not appealed cannot obtain affirmative relief from the appellate court beyond what was granted in the lower court's decision. The decision of the trial court became final as against them and could no longer be reviewed or reversed. On the issue of the award of damages, the application of the principle of abuse of right, and the concept of damnum absque injuria: The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages because although there was damage, there was no legal injury. The petitioners did not violate the principle of abuse of right under Article 21 of the Civil Code because constructing a fence within their own lot is a valid exercise of ownership rights. Prior to the trial court's decision, the petitioners had an absolute right over their property, and any injury sustained by the private respondents is considered damnum absque injuria (damage without legal injury).
Main Doctrine
The exercise of a lawful right, even if it results in damage to another, does not constitute a legal wrong if no legal right has been invaded. Such damage is considered damnum absque injuria.