Sps. Vergara vs. Sps. Sonkin

2.
G.R. No. 193659 June 15, 2015

SPS. FERNANDO VERGARA and HERMINIA VERGARA, Petitioners,
vs.
ERLINDA TORRECAMPO SONKIN, Respondent.
Facts:
Sps. Vergara and Sps. Sonkin are adjoining landowners. In view of the geographical configuration of the
adjoining properties, the property owned by Sps. Sonkin (Sonkin Property) is slightly lower in elevation
than that owned by Sps. Vergara (Vergara Property).
When Sps. Sonkin bought the Sonkin Property, they raised the height of the partition wall and caused
the construction of their house thereon. The house itself was attached to the partition wall.
Sps. Vergara levelled the uneven portion of the Vergara Property. As a result, the level of the Vergara
Property became even higher than that of the Sonkin Property. Eventually, Sps. Sonkin began to
complain that water coming from the Vergara Property was leaking into their bedroom through the
partition wall, causing cracks, as well as damage, to the paint and the wooden parquet floor. Sps. Sonkin
repeatedly demanded that Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall on their property in order to contain the
landfill that they had dumped thereon, but the same went unheeded. Hence, Sps. Sonkin filed the
instant complaint for damages and injunction with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and
issuance of a temporary restraining order against Sps. Vergara, as well as Sps. Rowena Santiago and
Harold Santiago, Dolores Vergara-Orbistondo, and Rosario Vergara-Payumo, the other possessors of the
Vergara Property.
In defense, Sps. Vergara, claimed that Sps. Sonkin’s act of raising the partition wall made the same
susceptible to breakage, which therefore cannot be attributed to them (Sps. Vergara). They likewise
claimed that when they levelled their own property by filling it with gravel and soil, they left a distance
of one (1) meter from the partition wall such that the edge of the landfill did not breach it, asserting
further that there was no valid and legal reason why they should be enjoined from exercising their
proprietary rights.
Issue:
Whether or not Sps. Sonkin is guilty of contributory negligence
Held:
YES.
Article 2179 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Verily, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the Sonkin property is lower in elevation than the Vergara
property, and thus, it is legally obliged to receive the waters that flow from the latter, pursuant to Article
637 of the Civil Code. This provision refers to the legal easement pertaining to the natural drainage of
lands, which obliges lower estates to receive from the higher estates water which naturally and without
the intervention of man descends from the latter, i.e., not those collected artificially in reservoirs, etc.,
and the stones and earth carried by the waters, viz.:
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
In this light, Sps. Sonkin should have been aware of such circumstance and, accordingly, made the
necessary adjustments to their property so as to minimize the burden created by such legal easement.
Instead of doing so, they disregarded the easement and constructed their house directly against the
perimeter wall which adjoins the Vergara property, thereby violating the National Building Code in the
process, specifically Section 708 (a) thereof which reads:
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.
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.
In view of Sps. Sonkin’s contributory negligence, the Court deems it appropriate to delete the award of
moral damages in their favor. While moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant’s
wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and
similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, they
are only given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering and should, therefore, reasonably
approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.

Sps. Vergara vs. Sps. Sonkin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Vergara vs. Sps. Sonkin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

G.R. No. 193659 June 15, 2015

Whether or not Sps. Sonkin is guilty of contributory negligence

Article 2179 of the Civil Code reads:

Section 708. Minimum Requirements for Group A Dwellings.

(a) Dwelling Location and Lot Occupancy.

You might also like