414 Phil.

786

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R No. 138964. August 09, 2001 ]
VICENTE RELLOSA, CYNTHIA ORTEGA ASSISTED BY HUSBAND
ROBERTO ORTEGA, PETITIONER, VS. GONZALO PELLOSIS,
INESITA MOSTE, AND DANILO RADAM, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

VITUG, J.:

“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.”[1] This provision in our law is not just a declaration of principle for it can
in itself constitute, when unduly ignored or violated, a valid source of a cause of
action or defense.

The case seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals in not countenancing an attempt
to abridge and render inutile a legal right to contest an adverse ruling of an
agency of government.

Respondents were lessees of a parcel of land, owned by one Marta Reyes, located
at San Pascual Street, Malate, Manila. Respondents had built their houses on the
land which, over the years, underwent continuous improvements. After the
demise of Marta, the land was inherited by her son Victor Reyes. Sometime in
1986, Victor informed respondents that, for being lessees of the land for more
than twenty (20) years, they would have a right of first refusal to buy the land.
Sometime in the early part of 1989, without the knowledge of respondents, the
land occupied by them was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega who was able to
ultimately secure title to the property in her name.

On 25 May 1989, Cynthia Ortega, filed a petition for condemnation, docketed

Condemnation Case No. 89-05-007, with the Office of the Building Official, City of
Manila, of the structures on the land.

On 31 May 1989, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a suit
for the “Declaration of Nullity of the Sale,” docketed as Civil Case No. 89-49176,
made in favor of petitioner Cynthia Ortega predicated upon their right of first
refusal which was claimed to have been impinged upon the sale of the land to
petitioner Ortega without their knowledge.

After due hearing in the condemnation case, the Office of the Building Official
issued a resolution, dated 27 November 1989, ordering the demolition of the
houses of respondents. Copies of the resolution were served upon respondents
and their counsel on 07 December 1989. The following day, or on 08 December
1989, Cynthia Ortega, together with her father and co-petitioner, Vicente Rellosa,
hired workers to commence the demolition of respondents' houses. Due to the
timely intervention of a mobile unit of the Western Police District, the intended
demolition did not take place following talks between petitioner Rellosa and
counsel who pleaded that the demolition be suspended since the order sought to
be implemented was not yet final and executory. On 11 December 1989,
respondents filed their appeal contesting the order of the Office of the Building
Official. On 12 December 1989, petitioners once again hired workers and
proceeded with the demolition of respondents' houses.

Resultantly, respondents filed Civil Case No. 89-49176 before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 54, praying that petitioners be ordered to pay moral and
exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, for the untimely demolition of the
houses. After trial, the court dismissed the complaint of respondents and instead
ordered them to pay petitioners moral damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals,
on the basis of its findings and conclusions, reversed the decision of the trial
court and ordered petitioners to pay respondents the following sums:

"1) Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) , or Twenty Five

Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for each appellant, by way of moral
damages;"

"2) Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), or Twenty Five thousand

Pesos (P25,000.00) for each appellant, by way of exemplary damages;"

"3) Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) as and for attorney's fees; and

"4) The costs of suit."[2]

The appellate court ruled:

"Thus, by the clear provisions of paragraph 23 of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations of PD 1096 (otherwise known as the Building
Code), above, appellants, being the parties adversely affected by the
November 27, 1989 Resolution of the Office of the Building Official, had
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the same within which to
perfect an administrative appeal. Thus, since appellants received a
copy of the Resolution on December 7, 1989, they had until December
22, 1989 within which to perfect an administrative appeal and until
such time, the said Resolution was not yet final and executory."

“x x x xxx xxx
 "It cannot be denied, therefore, that when appellees commenced to
demolish appellants' houses as early as December 8, 1989 and
eventually on December 12, 1989, neither the Resolution of the
Building Official nor the Demolition Order itself were final and
executory."[3]

Petitioners filed the instant petition contending that the appellate court gravely
erred in ruling that the premature demolition of respondents' houses entitled
them to the award of damages. Petitioners pointed out that the order of the
Office of the Building Official was eventually upheld on appeal by the
Department of Public Works and Highways in its decision of 14 March 1990.
Furthermore, petitioners added, the structures subject matter of the demolition
order were declared to be dangerous structures by the Office of the Building
Official and, as such, could be abated to avoid danger to the public.

The Court rules for affirmance of the assailed decision.

A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution,

statute or decisional law, or recognized as a result of long usage,[4] constitutive of
a legally enforceable claim of one person against another.

Petitioner might verily be the owner of the land, with the right to enjoy[5] and to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof,[6] but the exercise
of these rights is not without limitations. The abuse of rights rule established in
Article 19 of the Civil Code requires every person to act with justice, to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.[7] When a right is
exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in damage to
another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.
In this instance, the issue is not so much about the existence of the right or
validity of the order of demolition as the question of whether or not petitioners
have acted in conformity with, and not in disregard of, the standard set by
Article 19 of the Civil Code.

At the time petitioners implemented the order of demolition, barely five days
after respondents received a copy thereof, the same was not yet final and
executory. The law provided for a fifteen-day appeal period in favor of a party
aggrieved by an adverse ruling of the Office of the Building Official but by the
precipitate action of petitioners in demolishing the houses of respondents (prior
to the expiration of the period to appeal), the latter were effectively deprived of
this recourse. The fact that the order of demolition was later affirmed by the
Department of Public Works and Highways was of no moment. The action of
petitioners up to the point where they were able to secure an order of demolition
was not condemnable but implementing the order unmindful of the right of
respondents to contest the ruling was a different matter and could only be held
utterly indefensible.
The Court, however, finds the award of P75,000.00 exemplary damages and
another of P75,000.00 moral damages for each respondent to be rather excessive
given the circumstances; the awards must be reduced to the reasonable amounts
of P20,000.00 exemplary damages and P20,000.00 moral damages.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED by

reducing the awards of P75,000.00 exemplary damages and of P75,000.00 moral
damages to each respondent reduced to P20,000.00 exemplary damages and
P20,000.00 moral damages for each respondent. In all other respects, the
decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

[1] Art. 19, Civil Code.

[2] Rollo, p. 126.

[3] Rollo, pp. 123-124.

[4] Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1324.

[5] Art. 428, New Civil Code.

[6] Art. 429, New Civil Code.

[7] Albenson Enterprises Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 16.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: January 08, 2015

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System