Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Custodio vs. Court of Appeals: G.R. No. 116100. February 9, 1996 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Stephen Celoso Escartin
    The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages in this case. For damages to be awarded, there must be a legal wrong committed by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff. However, in this case, the defendants (petitioners) merely constructed an adobe wall on their own property, which was a valid exercise of their property rights and did not constitute an abuse of rights. While the plaintiffs (private respondents) suffered losses in the form of unrealized rentals due to restricted access, this damage was not the result of a legal wrong or injury committed by the defendants. It is a case of damnum absque injuria, where there is damage without a violation of a legal duty. As such, the plaintiffs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Custodio vs. Court of Appeals: G.R. No. 116100. February 9, 1996 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Stephen Celoso Escartin
    56 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages in this case. For damages to be awarded, there must be a legal wrong committed by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff. However, in this case, the defendants (petitioners) merely constructed an adobe wall on their own property, which was a valid exercise of their property rights and did not constitute an abuse of rights. While the plaintiffs (private respondents) suffered losses in the form of unrealized rentals due to restricted access, this damage was not the result of a legal wrong or injury committed by the defendants. It is a case of damnum absque injuria, where there is damage without a violation of a legal duty. As such, the plaintiffs

    Original Description:

    Custodio vs. ca

    Original Title

    Blank 8(2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages in this case. For damages to be awarded, there must be a legal wrong committed by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff. However, in this case, the defendants (petitioners) merely constructed an adobe wall on their own property, which was a valid exercise of their property rights and did not constitute an abuse of rights. While the plaintiffs (private respondents) suffered losses in the form of unrealized rentals due to restricted access, this damage was not the result of a legal wrong or injury committed by the defendants. It is a case of damnum absque injuria, where there is damage without a violation of a legal duty. As such, the plaintiffs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Custodio vs. Court of Appeals: G.R. No. 116100. February 9, 1996 Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Stephen Celoso Escartin
    The Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages in this case. For damages to be awarded, there must be a legal wrong committed by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff. However, in this case, the defendants (petitioners) merely constructed an adobe wall on their own property, which was a valid exercise of their property rights and did not constitute an abuse of rights. While the plaintiffs (private respondents) suffered losses in the form of unrealized rentals due to restricted access, this damage was not the result of a legal wrong or injury committed by the defendants. It is a case of damnum absque injuria, where there is damage without a violation of a legal duty. As such, the plaintiffs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like