CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC. v.

SPOUSES TANJANGCO and constructed the house – liable moral, exemplary damages
SPOUSES CUASO and attorney’s fees
G.R. No. 160795 27 June 2008 b. RTC dismissed the complaint against Engr. De Dios and
Corinthian for lack of cause of action
9. The Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the RTC, the
FACTS:
Tanjangcos, Cuasos, and CB Paraz all appealed to the CA.
1. Spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco own Lots 68 and 69 10. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
in Corinthian Gardens Subdivision, Quezon City which is managed a. Cuasos were builders in bad faith in land-grabbing the
by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association. Spouses Frank and 87sq.m. portion of Lot 69.
Teresita Cuaso own Lot 65 which is adjacent to the Tanjangco’s lots. b. CA allowed the Tanjangcos to exercise the rights granted
2. Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Lot 65, a relocation under Article 449, 450, 451 and 549 of the New Civil Code,
survey was necessary. Corinthian referred Engr. Democrito De Dios which include the right to demand the demolition of the
for the surveying. offending perimeter wall after reimbursing Cuasos the
3. Before, during and after the construction of the said house, necessary expenses for the preservation of the encroached
Corinthian conducted periodic ocular inspections in order to area.
determine compliance with the approved plans pursuant to the c. The Cuasos were ordered to pay monthly rentals of
Manual of Rules and Regulations of Corinthian. P10,000.00 for the use, enjoyment and occupancy of the lot
4. After the Cuasos constructed their house, employing the services of from 1989. They were likewise ordered to pay the
CB Paraz Construction as builder, the perimeter fence encroached Tanjangcos moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s
on the Tanjangco’s Lot 69 by 87 square meters. fees, with 6% interest annum on all the awards.
5. The Tanjangcos demanded the demolition of the perimeter. The d. Corinthian, CB Paraz, and Engr. De Dios were all found
refusal of the Cuasos prompted the Tanjangcos to file with the RTC negligent in performing their respective duties and so they
of Quezon City a suit for Recovery of Possession with Damages were ordered to contribute 5% each, or a total of 15% to all
6. The Cuasos filed a Third-Party Complaint against Corinthian, CB judgment sums and amounts that the Cuasos shall
Paraz, and Engr. De Dios, ascribing negligence to CP Paraz for its eventually pay under the decision, also with interest of 6%
failure to ascertain the proper specifications of their house, to Engr. per annum.
De Dios for his failure to undertake an accurate relocation survey. 11. Only Corinthian filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CA
7. The Cuasos faulted Corinthian for approving their relocation survey Decision. CA denied. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
and building plans without verifying accuracy and in making
representations as to Engr. De Dios’ integrity and competence.
a. Cuasos: Had Corinthian exercised diligence in performing its
duty, they would not have been involved in a boundary
dispute with the Tanjangcos.
8. RTC ruled in favor of the Tanjangcos but declared that the Cuasos
were builders in good faith.
a. RTC held that CP Paraz was grossly negligent in not taking
into account the correct boundaries of Cuasos’ lot when it
Petitioner’s contentions: HELD: YES. Petition is DENIED

1. The approval of the building plan of the Cuasos was not tainted with The instant case is one for tort, as governed by Article 2176, Civil Code.
negligence as it did not approve the survey relocation plan but
Article 2176, Civil Code: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
merely the architectural, structural and sanitary plans for Cuasos’
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
house
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
2. The purpose of the said approval is not to ensure that the house to
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
be erected on a particular lot is constructed within its boundaries
governed by the provision of this Chapter.
but only to ensure compliance with the Manual of Rules and
Regulations In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to prove by a
3. While Corinthian conducts actual site inspections, the inspection preponderance of evidence:
and approval of the building plans are limited to “table inspection”
only. The survey relocation plan was never submitted for 1. the damages suffered by the plaintiff;
2. the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for
Corinthian’s approval
whose act he must respond; and
4. The acceptance of the builder’s bond did not make Corinthian
3. the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence
automatically liable for the encroachment and for damages and the damages incurred.
5. Corinthian approved the building plan with the good faith and due Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos encroached on the
diligence required under the circumstances lot owned by the Tanjangcos. As a result, the Tanjangcos suffered
Respondent’s contentions: damages in having been deprived of the use of that portion of their
lot.
1. Corinthian’s claim that it merely conducts “table inspections” of
buildings further bolsters their argument that Corinthian was NEGLIGENT ACT
negligent in conveniently and unilaterally restricting and limiting the - an inadvertent act
coverage of its approval, contrary to its own Manual of Rules and - may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence
Regulations and may be one which creates a situation involving an
2. Corinthian, by regularly demanding and accepting membership unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable action
dues, must be wary of its responsibility to protect the rights and of the other, a third person, an animal or a force of nature
interests of its members. - one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor’s
position, in the same or similar circumstances, would foresee
such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not
ISSUE: WON Corinthian was negligent under the circumstances and, if to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner
so, whether such negligence contributed to the injury suffered by the
Tanjangcos Test to determine the existence of negligence: DID THE DEFENDANT IN
COMMITTING THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENT ACT USE THAT REASONABLE CARE
AND CAUTION WHICH AN ORDINARY PERSON WOULD HAVE USED I THE
SAME SITUATION? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference imprimatur on the construction of the Cuasos’ perimeter wall
to the personal judgment of the action in the situation before him. The law over the property of the Tanjangcos assured the Cuasos that
considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in a man of everything was in order.
ordinary intelligence and prudence, and determines liability according to
that standard. Corinthian’s failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos’
perimeter wall into Tanjangco’s property – despite the
Corinthians failed to exercise the requisite diligence in insuring that the
inspection conducted – constitutes negligence and contributed
Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and Regulations, thereby resulting in
to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.
the encroachment on the Tanjangco’s property.

A. Rules and Regulations – No new construction can be started

unless the building plans are approved by the Association…

CA Ruling : It goes without saying that the Manula applies to all.

Its so-called “table inspection” approval of the Cuasos’ building
plans is no less of an approval, as approvals come and go. And
since it’s an approval tainted with negligence, the necessary and
inevitable consequences which law and justice attach to such
negligence must, as a matter of law and justice, also necessarily
attach to Corinthian.

*Side issue – CASH BOND POSTING*

Corinthian does not imply that while it may take the benefits
from the Builder’s cash bond, it may wash its hands of any
responsibility or liability that would or might arise from the
construction or building of the structure for which the cash
bond was in the first place posted.

By its Manual, it is reasonable to assume that Corinthian,

through its representative, in the approval of building plans, and
in the conduct of periodic inspections, is responsible in insuring
compliance with the approved plans, inclusive of the
construction of perimeter walls.

Its very own rules imposes its authority over all its members to
the end that “no new construction can be started unless the
plans are approved by the Association and the appropriate cash
bond and pre-construction fees are paid”. Corinthian’s