Case Digest: Vergara vs. Sonkin, G.R. No. 193659. June 15, 2015


Easement

CASE TITLE: Vergara vs. Sonkin

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 193659. June 15, 2015.

PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe, J.

CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:

  1. RTC - Complaint for damages and injunction with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and issuance of a temporary restraining order

  2. CA - Appeal

FACTS:

  • Sps. Fernando Vergara and Herminia Vergara and Sps. Ronald Mark Sonkin and Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin are adjoining landowners in Poblacion, Norzagaray, Bulacan. 

    • The Sonkin Property is slightly lower in elevation than the Vergara Property.

  • In 1999, Sps. Sonkin raised the height of the partition wall and constructed their house, attaching part of it to the wall.

  • In 2001, Sps. Vergara leveled their property by filling it with gravel, earth, and soil, raising its level higher than the Sonkin Property by one-third of a meter.

  • Sps. Sonkin complained of water leakage from Vergara Property into their bedroom, causing cracks, and damage to paint and parquet floor. 

  • They demanded Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall, but the demands went unheeded.

  • Sps. Sonkin filed a complaint for damages, injunction, and a temporary restraining order against Sps. Vergara and other possessors of Vergara Property.

  • RTC: Found Sps. Vergara liable for damages and ordered them to:

    • Scrape the earth and filling materials near the partition wall.

    • Erect a retaining wall according to the National Building Code.

    • Install an adequate drainage system.

    • Pay ₱300,000 in actual damages, ₱50,000 in moral damages, ₱50,000 in exemplary damages, ₱100,000 in attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

  • CA:

    • Reversed the RTC Decision.

    • Ordered Sps. Vergara to install an adequate drainage system and pay ₱50,000 in moral damages and ₱100,000 in attorney’s fees.

    • Removed the requirement to scrape the landfill and build a retaining wall.

    • Deleted the awards for actual and exemplary damages.

    • Found Sps. Sonkin guilty of contributory negligence for building their house abutting the partition wall and violating the setback rule.


ISSUE:


Whether the CA should have ordered the demolition of the portion of the Sps. Sonkin’s house that adjoins the partition wall. YES


ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES  

PETITIONER

RESPONDENTS

  • Sps. Sonkin are not entitled to damages and should demolish parts of their house abutting the partition wall in compliance with the National Building Code.

  • -

  • Claimed that Sps. Sonkin’s act of raising the partition wall made it susceptible to damage, which should not be attributed to them.

  • Argued they left a one-meter distance from the partition wall when filling their property and did not breach it.

  • Asserted there was no valid reason to prevent them from exercising their proprietary rights over their property.


  • Asserted that Sps. Vergara's landfill caused water seepage, cracks, and damage to their property.

  • Argued Sps. Vergara were obligated to build a retaining wall and provide safety measures for the landfill according to the National Building Code.

  • Highlighted Sps. Vergara's failure to provide a proper drainage system, violating the National Building Code.

PREVAILING PARTY: Petitioner

DECISION/DOCTRINE:


The petition is meritorious.


Article 2179 of the Civil Code reads:


Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.


Verily, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.


In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the Sonkin property is lower in elevation than the Vergara property, and thus, it is legally obliged to receive the waters that flow from the latter, pursuant to Article 637 of the Civil Code. This provision refers to the legal easement pertaining to the natural drainage of lands, which obliges lower estates to receive from the higher estates water which naturally and without the intervention of man descends from the latter, i.e., not those collected artificially in reservoirs, etc., and the stones and earth carried by the waters, viz.:


Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with them.


The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the burden. 


In this light, Sps. Sonkin should have been aware of such circumstance and, accordingly, made the necessary adjustments to their property so as to minimize the burden created by such legal easement. Instead of doing so, they disregarded the easement and constructed their house directly against the perimeter wall which adjoins the Vergara property, thereby violating the National Building Code in the process, specifically Section 708 (a) thereof which reads:


Section 708. Minimum Requirements for Group A Dwellings.


(a) Dwelling Location and Lot Occupancy.


The dwelling shall occupy not more than ninety percent of a corner lot and eighty percent of an inside lot, and subject to the provisions on Easement on Light and View of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall be at least 2 meters from the property line.


Hence, the CA correctly held that while the proximate cause of the damage sustained by the house of Sps. Sonkin was the act of Sps. Vergara in dumping gravel and soil onto their property, thus, pushing the perimeter wall back and causing cracks thereon, as well as water seepage, the former is nevertheless guilty of contributory negligence for not only failing to observe the two (2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, but also for disregarding the legal easement constituted over their property. As such, Sps. Sonkin must necessarily and equally bear their own loss.


In view of Sps. Sonkin’s contributory negligence, the Court deems it appropriate to delete the award of moral damages in their favor. While moral damages may be awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article 221937 of the Civil Code,38 they are only given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering and should, therefore, reasonably approximate the extent of hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.


Anent the issue on attorney’s fees, the general rule is that the same cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause. In this case, the Court observes that neither Sps. Sonkin nor Sps. Vergara(thru their compulsory counterclaim) were shown to have acted in bad faith in pursuing their respective claims against each other. The existence of bad faith is negated by the fact that both parties have valid contentions against each other. Thus, absent cogent reason to hold otherwise, the Court deems it inappropriate to award attorney's fees in favor of either party.


Finally, in view of Sps. Sonkin's undisputed failure to observe the two (2)-meter setback rule under the National Building Code, and in light of the order of the courts a quo directing Sps. Vergara to provide an adequate drainage system within their property, the Court likewise deems it proper, equitable, and necessary to order Erlinda, who is solely impleaded as respondent before the Court, to comply with the aforesaid rule by the removal of the portion of her house directly abutting the partition wall. The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must therefore be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.


WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 24, 2010 and the Resolution dated September 2, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89357 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The awards of moral damages and attorney's fees are DELETED and respondent Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin is DIRECTED to strictly comply with Section 708 (a) of the National Building Code by removing or demolishing the portion of her house that occupies the two-meter easement from the property line. The rest of the CA Decision stands.


SO ORDERED.


ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more