D.

Damnum absque injuria

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

Custodio v. Court of Appeals

FACTS:

Pacifico Mabasa (Pacifico) owns a parcel of land with a two-door apartment within Interior
P.Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas, Tagig, Metro Manila. When Pacifico acrquired such land from the
spouses, Mamerto Rayos and Teodora Quintero, the said property was described was surrounded by
immovables which were a row of houses owned by Cristino Brigido Custudio, Lito ad Maria Cristina
Santos, Ofelia Mabasa, and Rosalina Morato with a septic tank beside her. There are two passages
ways to Pacifico’s property; the first being one meter wide while the second three (3) meters in length
and width. Upon the vacancy of one of the residences Pacifico discovered a fance which made the first
passage narrower, said fence was built by the Santoses. Another fence was discovered to be Morato’s
which enclosed an entire passageway. The blocked passages made the remaining tenants vecate the
property.

On February 27, 1990 the trial court ordered that the Custudios and Santoses give Pacifico
permanent access ingress and egress of the public street, and ordered Pacifico to pay Custudios and
Santoses a sum of Eight Thousand Pesos as indemnity for the usage of said passageway. Not satisfied,
the Heirs of Pacifico (heirs) went to the Court of Appeals. On November 10, 1999 the CA affirmed and
modified the trial court’s decision which granted damages to the heirs and made the Santoses and
Custodios to pay a sum of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (P65,000) as Actual Damages, Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000) as Moral Damges and Ten Thousand Pesos (10,000) as Exemplary Damages. On July
8, 1994 the CA denied the heir’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the CA erred in awarding the damages to the heirs.

RULING:

Yes. The CA erred in awarding the damages to the heirs. In the decision of the CA the damges
were awarded in the basis that Pacifico incurred losses in the form of unrealized rental when the
tenants vacated the property by the closure of the passageway. The loss does not give right to recover
damages, there must be both right if action or legal wrong inflicted by the Santoses and the Custodios,
and the damages resulting to Pacifico and his heirs. Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results in
injury, and injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damages are the compensation awarded to
damage suffered. Instances where the loss or harm was not a result of a violation of legal duty are;
damnum absque injuria.

The construction of the fence by both the Santoses and the Custodios within their lot is a valid
exercise of their right as owners, not contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. The law
recognizes such right of owners to enclose or to fence their property by Article 430 of the Civil Code.
Pacifico had no existng right over the passageways thus the trial court gave him right to passage upon
compensation to the Santoses and the Cusodios. The Santoses and the Custodios had the absolute
right to enclose their premises within a fence, such exercise of right was damnum absque injuria for in
the execution f that right there was unavoidabe loss, such loss does not constitute as a legal right that
has been invaded. The courts cannot give no redress for harshiped experienced from a reasonable
action achived by lawful means, thus the damage or injury occassioned is damnum absque injuria. The
appealed decision by the heirs to the CA is reversed and set aside and the judgement by the trial courts
os reinstated.
G.R. No. 161188, June 13, 2008

Heirs of Nala v. Cabansag

FACTS:

Artemio Cabansag (Artemio) bought a 50-square meter property from spouses Eugenio
Gomez Jr. and Felisa Duyan Gomez (Gomezes) which was part of a 400-square meter lot registered in
the name of the spouses. Artemio would later receive a letter from Atty. Alexander del Prado (Atty.
Del Prado) on behalf of Purisima Nala (Nala) that asks for the payments of rentals from 1987 to 1991
until he leaves the premises, and another letter of demand was sent on May 14, 1991. Such demands
made Artemio suffer damages and was constrained to which he filed a case against Nala and Atty. Del
Prado.

Atty. Del Prado claimed that the letters were sent in good faith and was acting on behalf of
Nala who was disputing Artemio’s claim of ownership. Nala alleged that the property was a part of a
800-square meter property owned by her late husband, Eugenio Duyan (Eugenio). The property was
divided into two with Eugenio conveying the 400 meter property, within a fictitious deed of sale, to
the Gomezes that was agreed to be held in trust for Eugenio’s children. Nala claims that Artemio is
merely renting the property.

The Regional Trial Court of Qon city decided in favor of Artemio where both Nala and Atty. Del
Prado would jointly and severally pay Artemio 150,000.00 pesos for moral damages, 30,000.00 pesos
for exemplary damages, and 20,000.00 pesos for reasonable attorney’s fees an other litigation
expenses. Nala and Atty. Del Prado would appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) which decided to
affirm and modify the RTC’s decision that made both Nala and Atty. Del Prado pay jointly and severally
30,000.00 pesos for moral damages, 10,000.00 pesos for exemplary damages, and 10,000.00 pesos
for attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in awarding the damages and attorney’s to
Artemio.

RULING:

No. Nala was acting upon her right to protect their interest over the property. The right she
excercised was lawful and was not violative of Article 19 of the Civil Code. There was no abuse of rights
because the legal right or duty was not excercised in bad faith and the intent was not to prejudice or
injure Artemio. In the first place Nala thought that the property was her late-husband’s and thought
that Artemio was illegally occupying the property. She had no knowledge that the Gomezes sold the
property, and only found out when Artemio filed the case for damages. The letters issued by Nala and
Atty. Del Prado were not within bad a faith because it was seeking to lawfully protect her interest. The
act done by Nala and Atty. Del Prado had no intention to prejudice and injure Artemio, though Artemio
claimed to have suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, and sleepness night by the demands said
damage was damnum absque injuria. The damage suffered by Artemio was due to Nala excercising
her vested right to protect her property, in her lawful execution of her right she incurred damage to
Artemio but said damage was not through injury because there was no legal invasion of a legal right.
The consequence of Nala’s action was merely of Artemio alone. One who makes use of his own legal
right does no injury, thus whatever damges suffered by the respondent should be borne solely by him.
The petition is granted where the previous decision by the CA is nulified and the decision by the RTC
dismissed for lack of merit.