Spouses Cristina and Brigido Custodio and Spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos v CA, Heirs of

Pacifico Mabasa, and RTC of Pasig

Regalado, J.
February 9, 1996
G.R. No. 116100

Doctrine

Damages is materially distinct from injury. An injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense
or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These
situations are often called damnum absque injuria. It happens when a person sustains actual
damage, that is, harm or loss to his person or property, without sustaining any legal injury, that is,
an act or omission which the law does not deem an injury.

Summary

Mabasa filed a suit against the petitioners in this case for the grant of easement of way after the
latter constructed an adobe fence in their property which deprived the former of his passageway.
The lower court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mabasa with the latter ordering award
of damages in his favor. However, the Court ruled that the act of the petitioners in setting up the
fence was a lawful exercise of a right so that even if it did cause damage to Mabasa, it did not
cause them lawful injury so the award of damages is not proper. Any injury or damage occasioned
thereby is damnum absque injuria.

Facts

Pacifico Mabasa owned a parcel of land with a two-door apartment erected thereon
situated at Interior P. Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas, Taguig which he acquired from the
spouses Mamerto Reyes and Teodora Quinta in 1981.
It was surrounded by immovables owned by the spouses Custodio and Santos. Taking P.
Burgos Street as the point of reference, on the left side, going to plaintiffs property, the
row of houses will be as follows: That of Cristino and Brigido Custodio, then that of Lito
and Maria Cristina Santos and then that of Mabasa. On the right side is that of Morato and
then a septic tank.
To access P. Burgos street, there are two passageways. The first, which is a meter wide and
about 20 meters distant from Mabasas residence to P. Burgos Street, passes in between the
previously mentioned row of houses.
The second passageway is about 3 meters in width and length from Mabasas residence to
P. Burgos Street; it is about 26 meters. In passing thru said passageway, a less than a meter
wide path through the septic tank and with 5-6 meters in length has to be traversed.
At the time Mabasa bought the property, there were already tenants occupying the
premises whom he also acknowledged. Upon checking it, however, he found out that one
of the tenants vacated the apartment and that the Santos constructed an adobe fence in
the first passageway, even extending it so that the way became narrower.
Santos reasoned out that she constructed the adobe fence because of the
inconveniences of having the front of their house face the pathway. Drunks would bother
them and their footwear gets stolen.
Thus, Mabasa filed a case for a grant of an easement of way against Custodios, Santos,
and Morato before the RTC of Pasig City. It ruled in favor of Mabasa and ordered
Custodio and Santos to give him permanent access ingress and egress to the public
street. It also ordered Mabasa to pay them P8,000 for the permanent use of the

passageway. CA affirmed the ruling and awarded damages to the plaintiff: P65,000 as
actual damages; P 30,000 as moral damages; P10,000 as exemplary damages.

Ratio/Issue
s

1. Whether or not the grant of right of way to Mabasa is proper (BARRED)

a) Petitioners are already barred from raising the same. Petitioners did not appeal from the
decision of the court a quo granting private respondents the right of way, hence they are presumed
to be satisfied with the adjudication
2. Whether or not the award of damages is proper (NO there was damage, but no legal
injury)
a) The award of damages has no substantial legal basis. The award of damages was based solely
on the fact that the original plaintiff, Pacifico Mabasa, incurred losses in the form of unrealized
rentals when the tenants vacated the leased premises by reason of the closure of the passageway,
but the mere fact of loss does not give rise right to recover damages.
b) To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong
inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without
damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are
merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
c) (See doctrine). For the plaintiff to maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he
must establish that it resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff. The
basis for the awarding of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of law. In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that
act must be not only hurtful, but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria.
d) Respondents committed no abuse of right in setting up the fence for the following requisites
were not present:
The defendant should have acted in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy;
The acts should be willful.

Held

There was damage or injury to the plaintiff.

Their act of constructing the fence was a valid exercise of their rights as owners and the law
recognizes that they have the right to enjoy and dispose the thing without other limitations
than that established by law.
e) At the time, when they constructed the fence, the lot was not subject to any servitudes. There
was no easement of way existing in favor of private respondents, either by law or by contract. As
a general rule, therefore, there is no cause of action for acts done by one person upon his
own property in a lawful and proper manner, although such acts incidentally cause damage
or an unavoidable loss to another, as such damage or loss is damnum absque injuria.
Appealed decision reversed and set aside.

Prepared by: Eunice V. Guadalope