Vergara v. Sonkin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners-spouses Fernando and Herminia Vergara (Sps. Vergara) and respondent-spouses Ronald Mark and Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin (Sps. Sonkin) are adjoining landowners. The Sonkin Property is lower in elevation than the Vergara Property. Upon purchasing their property in 1999, Sps. Sonkin raised the partition wall and constructed their house attached to it. In 2001, Sps. Vergara leveled their property by filling it with gravel and soil, making it higher than the Sonkin Property. Sps. Sonkin complained of water leaking from the Vergara Property into their bedroom through the partition wall, causing cracks and damage. Sps. Sonkin repeatedly demanded Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall, but their demands were ignored. Procedural History: Sps. Sonkin filed a complaint for damages and injunction against Sps. Vergara and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sps. Vergara civilly liable, ordering them to scrape landfill, erect a retaining wall, install a drainage system, and pay damages and attorney's fees. The RTC dismissed other claims and counterclaims. Sps. Vergara appealed, arguing they were exercising proprietary rights and that Sps. Sonkin violated the National Building Code. Sps. Sonkin partially appealed the damages awarded. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ordering Sps. Vergara to install a drainage system and pay moral damages and attorney's fees, but set aside the order to remove landfill and build a retaining wall, and deleted actual and exemplary damages. The CA found Sps. Sonkin guilty of contributory negligence for building their house directly abutting the partition wall and violating the two-meter setback rule under the National Building Code. Sps. Vergara sought reconsideration, which was denied. The Petition: Sps. Vergara filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing Sps. Sonkin were not entitled to damages and should be ordered to demolish the parts of their house abutting the partition wall.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the award of moral damages and attorney's fees, considering the contributory negligence of Sps. Sonkin. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the demolition of the portion of the Sps. Sonkin's house that adjoins the partition wall, considering the application of the setback rule and the principle of contributory negligence.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court granted the petition, affirming the CA Decision with modifications. The awards of moral damages and attorney's fees were deleted, and respondent Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin was directed to comply with Section 708 (a) of the National Building Code by removing or demolishing the portion of her house that occupies the two-meter easement from the property line. The rest of the CA Decision stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of moral damages and attorney's fees: The Court found that Sps. Sonkin were guilty of contributory negligence. Article 2179 of the Civil Code states that if the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of their injury, they cannot recover damages, but if it was only contributory, damages may be recovered but shall be mitigated. In this case, Sps. Sonkin's property is legally obliged to receive water from the higher Vergara property under Article 637 of the Civil Code. Despite this, Sps. Sonkin built their house directly against the perimeter wall, violating the two-meter setback rule under Section 708 (a) of the National Building Code. This failure to observe the setback rule and disregard for the legal easement constituted contributory negligence. Therefore, the award of moral damages was deleted as Sps. Sonkin must bear their own loss due to their negligence. Similarly, the award of attorney's fees was deleted because neither party acted in bad faith in pursuing their claims; both had valid contentions, negating the need for such an award. On the issue of ordering demolition of the portion of the house: In view of Sps. Sonkin's undisputed failure to observe the two-meter setback rule under the National Building Code and the CA's order for Sps. Vergara to provide an adequate drainage system, the Court deemed it proper, equitable, and necessary to order Erlinda to comply with the setback rule by removing or demolishing the portion of her house directly abutting the partition wall. The principle of contributory negligence dictates that a party partly responsible for their own injury should bear the consequences of their negligence, and the defendant should only be liable for damages actually caused by their negligence. The CA's previous order to remove the landfill and build a retaining wall was deemed an unreasonable interference with proprietary rights, and providing a drainage system was considered sufficient for Sps. Vergara's obligation.
Main Doctrine
A property owner who contributes to their own injury through negligence, such as by violating setback rules and disregarding legal easements, is guilty of contributory negligence and must bear their own loss, thereby mitigating or negating the defendant's liability for damages.