THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No.
138964. August 9, 2001]
VICENTE RELLOSA, CYNTHIA ORTEGA assisted by husband Roberto
Ortega, petitioner, vs. GONZALO PELLOSIS, INESITA MOSTE, and DANILO
RADAM, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
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 x x x x x x
"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.