CUSTODIO vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 116100. February 9, 1996

DOCTRINE:
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right to
recover damages. 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.

Damnum absque injuria – There is a material distinction between damages

and injury. 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.

Article 21 – Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides the basis for the
principle of abuse of rights. For there to be an abuse of rights, the following
requisites must concur: (1) defendant acted in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy; (2) The acts should be willful and; (3) There
was damage or injury to the plaintiff.

FACTS:
Private Respondent Mabasa wanted to establish an easement of right of way
going into their property against petitioners who built an adobe wall in their
properties which thereby restricted access to the Mabasa property.
Petitioners claim that they built the wall in order to protect their persons and
their property from their intrusive neighbors. The Trial Court nonetheless
ordered that an easement be created.

Not satisfied, Mabasa went to the Court of Appeals which modified the
decision of the trial court by awarding actual damages (p65,000.00), moral
damages (p30,000.00) and exemplary damages (p10,000.00). Hence this
petition. Damages were based on the fact of loss in the form of unrealized
rentals on the property due to the adobe wall restricting access.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in awarding damages.

HELD:
Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, the award for damages has no legal basis.
The mere fact of loss does not give rise to a right to recover damages. There
must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by defendant and a
damage to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Damages are merely a part of
the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

An injury is an illegal invasion of a legal right, any loss, hurt and harm
resulting from the injury is damage. Damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. In this case, the petitioners
merely constructed an adobe wall which was in keeping with and is a valid
exercise of their rights as the owner of their respective properties—i.e. there
was no abuse of right as provided for in Article 21 of the New Civil Code and
where the following requisites must concur: (1) defendant acted in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; (2) The acts should be
willful and; (3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff. None of these
requisites was present in this case.

The loss was therefore not a result of a violation of a legal duty. Instances
where the damage was not a result of an injury is called damnum absque
injuria and the plaintiff is not normally given an award for damages.

In other words, 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.