G.R. No. 193659
G.R. No. 193659
~upreme ~ourt
;ff-Manila
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Facts
Rollo, pp. 11-18. Petitioners also filed an amended petition on December 12, 2011 (id. at 160-169)
which was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated .January 30, 2012 (id. at 280-281 ).
Id. at 21-34. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
Id. at 117-118.
4
Id. at 60-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Renato C. Francisco.
~
Decision 2 G.R. No. 193659
During the trial, Sps. Sonkin presented the testimony of Engineer Ma.
Victoria Mendoza, considered an expert witness, who categorically declared
that in view of the sloping terrain and the Sonkin Property being lower in
elevation than that of the Vergara Property, the Sps. Vergara were then duty
bound to provide a retaining wall because they were the ones who caused the
5
Id. at 22.
6
Id.
7
See id. at 22-23.
8
See Complaint dated December 9, 2002; id. at 35-41.
9
See Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated January 10, 2003; id. at 48-52.
10
See id. at 23 and 50.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 193659
11
The pertinent portion of Section 1202 of the National Building Code reads:
Section 1202. Excavation, Foundation and Retaining Walls.
xxxx
(c) Footings, Foundations, and Retaining Walls
xxxx
(2) Whenever or wherever there exists in the site of the construction an abrupt change in
the ground levels or level of the foundation such that instability of the soil could
result, retaining walls shall be provided and such shall be of adequate design and type
of construction as prescribed by the Secretary.
12
Entitled ADOPTING A NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES THEREBY REVISING REPUBLIC
ACT NUMBERED SIXTY-FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE (February 19, 1977).
13
The original IRR have been revised in October 29, 2004.
14
Section 901 of the National Building Code provides:
Subject to the provisions of Book II of the Civil Code of the Philippines on Property,
Ownership, and its Modification, all buildings hereafter erected, altered, remodeled,
relocated or repaired for human habitation shall be provided with adequate and potable
water supply, plumbing installation, and suitable wastewater treatment or disposal
system, storm water drainage, pest and vermin control, noise abatement device, and such
other measures required for the protection and promotion of health of persons occupying
the premises and others living nearby.
15
See rollo, pp. 66-68.
16
See id. 63-64.
17
Id. at 60-72.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 193659
attorneys fees, and costs of suit. It dismissed all other claims of the Sps.
Sonkin, as well as the counterclaims of Sps. Vergara, for lack of merit.18
The RTC found that the earth dumped on the Vergara Property pushed
back the perimeter wall, causing cracks on Sps. Sonkins bedroom wall and
water to seep through the floor of the house. Moreover, the water seepage
could only have come from the Vergara Property which was higher in
elevation, as Sps. Vergara have failed to provide any drainage to divert the
flow of water. Given the foregoing, the RTC concluded that Sps. Vergaras
act of dumping earth, soil, and other materials in their property directly
caused the damage to the house of Sps. Sonkin and, thus, they should be
held liable for damages in favor of the latter. Needless to state, Sps.
Vergaras co-defendants were exculpated from liability since they were not
shown to have participated in the formers act.19
On the other hand, Sps. Sonkin filed only a partial appeal,22 assailing
the amount of actual, moral, and exemplary damages.
The CA Ruling
While the CA concurred with the finding of the RTC that the cause of
the water seepage into the Sonkin Property was the act of Sps. Vergara in
18
Id. at 71-72.
19
Id. at 68-71.
20
See Notice of Appeal dated February 7, 2007; id. at 73-74.
21
See id. at 25.
22
See Notice of Partial Appeal dated February 15, 2007; id. at 75-76.
23
Id. at 21-34.
24
Id. at 32-33.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 193659
elevating their own property by filling it with gravel and soil, it ascribed
error upon the RTC in not finding that Sps. Sonkin were likewise guilty of
contributory negligence in building their house directly abutting the
perimeter wall.25 The CA explained that despite the fact that under Article
637 of the Civil Code, the Sonkin Property is legally obliged to receive any
water from higher estates such as the Vergara Property, it being the lower
estate, the Sps. Sonkin still built their house with parts thereof directly
abutting the perimeter wall and, in the process, violated the two (2)-meter
setback rule under Section 70826 of the National Building Code.27 Thus, the
CA deduced that had Sps. Sonkin followed such rule, then their house would
not have sustained any damage from water coming from the Vergara
property.28 Proceeding from such ratiocination, the CA deleted the award of
actual damages in the absence of evidence, i.e., actual receipts, showing the
amount actually spent by Sps. Sonkin in the repairs or renovation of their
property. Similarly, it deleted the award of exemplary damages, as Sps.
Vergara was not proven to have acted with gross negligence in levelling
their property with the landfill and in mitigation of their liability in light of
Sps. Sonkins contributory negligence. The award of moral damages and
attorneys fees, however, were affirmed.29
Finally, the CA found the order directing Sps. Vergara to remove the
landfill on their property to be unreasonable and an interference on their
proprietary rights. It considered the order to provide an adequate drainage
system on their property to be sufficient under the circumstances. Neither
did it find the need to build a retaining wall on the Vergara Property for the
purpose of containing the landfill thereon, opining that if it was Sps.
Vergaras obligation to prevent damage to Sps. Sonkins house by erecting a
retaining wall, then it was the latters concomitant obligation to detach their
house from the perimeter wall in order to prevent any future damage or
injury.30
25
Id. at 26-27.
26
Section 708 (a) of the National Building Code provides:
Section 708. Minimum Requirements for Group A Dwellings.
(a) Dwelling Location and Lot Occupancy.
The dwelling shall occupy not more than ninety percent of a corner lot and eighty percent
of an inside lot, and subject to the provisions on Easement on Light and View of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, shall be at least 2 meters from the property line.
xxxx
27
See id. at 27-28.
28
Id. at 27.
29
See id. at 30-33.
30
Id. at 31-32.
31
See motion for reconsideration dated March 18, 2010; id. at 110-114.
32
Id. at 117-118.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 193659
should be ordered to demolish the parts of their house directly abutting the
perimeter wall in compliance with Section 708 (a) of the National Building
Code. 33 Records are bereft of showing that Sps. Sonkin made a further
appeal to the Court.
The issues for the Courts resolution are (a) whether or not the CA
erred in upholding the award of moral damages and attorneys fees; and (b)
whether or not it should have ordered the demolition of the portion of the
Sps. Sonkins house that adjoins the partition wall.
33
See id. at 15-17. See also amended petition dated December 6, 2011; id. at 166-168.
34
Allied Banking Corporation v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 188363, February 27, 2013,
692 SCRA 186, 201, citing Philippine National Bank v. Cheah Chee Chong, G.R. Nos. 170865 &
170892, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 49, 64.
35
See Paras, Edgardo L., CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, Vol. II, Sixteenth Edition (2008),
pp. 686-687.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 193659
Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which
naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the
higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with
them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will
impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make
works which will increase the burden. 36 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
The dwelling shall occupy not more than ninety percent of a corner lot and
eighty percent of an inside lot, and subject to the provisions on Easement
on Light and View of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall be at least 2
meters from the property line.
Hence, the CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the
damage sustained by the house of Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in
dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus, pushing the perimeter wall
back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water seepage, the former is
nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only failing to observe
the two (2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but also
for disregarding the legal easement constituted over their property. As such,
Sps. Sonkin must necessarily and equally bear their own loss.
Anent the issue on attorneys fees, the general rule is that the same
cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no
premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be
awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award
attorneys fees under Article 2208 40 of the Civil Code demands factual,
legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to
37
Article 2219 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
instances:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and
35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No.
3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the
action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
38
California Clothing, Inc. v. Quiones, G.R. No. 175822, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 420, 431, citing
Carpio v. Valmonte, 481 Phil. 352, 364 (2004).
39
Id., citing Villanueva v. Rosqueta, 624 Phil. 330, 337 (2010).
40
Article 2208 of the Civil Code reads:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation,
other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 193659
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still
attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith
could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous
conviction of the righteousness of his cause. 41 In this case, the Court
observes that neither Sps. Sonkin nor Sps. Vergara (thru their compulsory
counterclaim) were shown to have acted in bad faith in pursuing their
respective claims against each other. The existence of bad faith is negated by
the fact that both parties have valid contentions against each other. Thus,
absent cogent reason to hold otherwise, the Court deems it inappropriate to
award attorney's fees in favor of either party. 42
SO ORDERED.
w1., IU,.J/
ESTELA M. P}:RLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
41
See The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints v. BTL Construction
Corporation, G.R. No. 176439, January 15, 2014, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v.
Traverse Development Corporation, 674 Phil. 405, 415 (2011 ).
42
See id.
43
Bank of America NT & SA v. Philippine Racing Club, 611 Phil. 687, 702 (2009), citing Lambert v.
Heirs of Ray Castillon, 492 Phil. 384, 391-392 (2005).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 193659
WE CONCUR:
/,/)1A1~, ~ ~ {!M
TEiiESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
EZ
CERTIFICATION