Rana v. Wong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana (Sps. Rana) elevated and cemented a portion of a 10-meter wide subdivision road abutting their property and backfilled a portion of the perimeter fence separating their property from that of Spouses Wilson and Rosario Uy (Sps. Uy). Teresita Lee Wong (Wong) and Spouses Shirley and Ruben Ang Ong (Sps. Ong) are co-owners of a property across the road from Sps. Rana. Procedural History: - RTC: In Civil Case No. CEB-20893 (Abatement of Nuisance), the RTC found both Sps. Rana and Wong, et al. acted in bad faith regarding the road portion, thus denying relief. However, it ordered Sps. Rana to construct a retaining wall due to the backfilling endangering Sps. Uy. In Civil Case No. CEB-21296 (Recovery of Property), the RTC, despite a commissioner's finding of a 2 sq. m. encroachment by Sps. Uy on Sps. Rana's property, dismissed the case due to lack of substantiation of bad faith claims. - CA: The CA affirmed the RTC's decisions, finding Sps. Rana's road alteration curtailed Wong and Sps. Ong's use of their property, and Wong, et al.'s demolition of the alteration hampered Sps. Rana's ingress and egress. It also affirmed the need for a retaining wall and the dismissal of the encroachment case. The Petition: Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Linda Rana (G.R. No. 192861) faulted the lower courts for not finding malice and bad faith against Wong and Sps. Uy and for failing to grant her reliefs. Wong, et al. (G.R. No. 192862) faulted the lower courts for applying the in pari delicto doctrine and failing to abate the nuisance, and for not finding Sps. Rana guilty of bad faith in the encroachment case.
Issue(s)
Whether the elevated and cemented portion of the road constitutes a nuisance and whether its demolition by Wong, et al. was warranted. Whether Sps. Rana are liable for damages for the subject backfilling. Whether Sps. Uy encroached upon the property of Sps. Rana. Whether the parties' claims for malicious prosecution, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses should be granted. Whether the principle of in pari delicto applies to the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decisions of the CA and RTC. It held that the damages of the parties should be offset. Linda Rana was ordered to build a retaining wall. Spouses Uy were directed to return the 2-square meter encroached portion to Linda Rana, after which Linda Rana shall build the retaining wall. All other claims and counterclaims were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elevated and cemented portion of the road: The Court ruled that the elevated and cemented portion of the road constructed by Sps. Rana is not a nuisance per se, but a nuisance per accidens. As it is not a nuisance per se, it could not be summarily abated. Therefore, Wong, et al.'s demolition of this portion, which was not sanctioned by the RTC's order, was unwarranted. The Court found that both Sps. Rana and Wong, et al. committed infractions, and their respective damages should be offset. Sps. Rana were held liable for nominal damages for their construction of the subject portion, and Wong, et al. were also held liable for nominal damages for their unwarranted demolition. On the subject backfilling: The Court agreed with the RTC and CA that the backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property, thereby constituting a nuisance that endangered the safety of the occupants. Consequently, Linda Rana was ordered to construct a retaining wall at her own expense to bear the weight and pressure of the filling materials. The construction was to be in accordance with the sketch from the Office of the Building Official (OBO). On the encroachment of Sps. Uy: The Court found that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the case for recovery of property. It was determined that Sps. Uy had indeed encroached upon Sps. Rana's property to the extent of 2 square meters, as shown by the report of the court-appointed commissioner. The Court held that Sps. Rana sufficiently proved their claim and are therefore entitled to the return of the encroached portion. The obligation of Linda Rana to build the retaining wall was made contingent upon the return of this encroached area. On claims for malicious prosecution, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses: The Court found no clear and convincing proof that the filing of the complaints by the parties was precipitated by malice or bad faith. Malicious prosecution requires both malice and absence of probable cause, which were not proven. The damages caused by the parties' respective actions did not result in physical suffering, mental anguish, or other injuries warranting moral damages. Exemplary damages were also denied. Consequently, claims for attorney's fees and litigation expenses were also dismissed for lack of merit. On the application of the in pari delicto doctrine: The Court disagreed with the CA's application of the in pari delicto principle. The Court clarified that this principle applies to inexistent and void contracts, which was not the issue in this case. Instead, the Court applied the principle of offsetting damages due to the mutual infractions committed by the parties.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that while both parties committed infractions, their damages should be offset. The elevated road portion was deemed a nuisance per accidens, not per se, thus not subject to summary abatement. The backfilling constituted a nuisance endangering safety, requiring a retaining wall. Encroachment on a property entitles the owner to recovery. Claims for malicious prosecution, moral, and exemplary damages were denied due to lack of proof.