Rellosa v.

Pellosis (2001)
G.R. No. 138964
August 9, 2001
 
FACTS:
 Petitioners: Vicente Rellosa (father), Cynthia Ortega (assisted by husband Roberto Ortega)
o Counsel: Augusto P. Jimenez, Jr.
o Filed petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
 Respondents: Gonzalo Pellosis, Inesita Moste, Danilo Radam
o Lessees of a parcel of land (San Pascual St., Malate, Manila) owned by Marta Reyes
o Built a house on the land and underwent continuous improvements
o Land was inherited by Victor Reyes after Marta's death
o 1986: Victor Reyes informed respondents would have a right of first refusal to buy
the land
 1989: Land occupied was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega ultimately securing title to the
property in her name
o Respondents had no knowledge
 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Office of the Building Official (Manila)
 May 25, 1989: Cynthia Ortega filed petition for condemnation to the Office of the Building
Official (Manila) of the structures of the land
 Office of the Building Official: Ordered the demolition of the houses of respondents
(Resolution dated November 27, 1989)
o Dec. 7, 1989: copies of the decision were sent to respondents and their counsel
o Dec. 8, 1989: petitioners hired workers to commence demolition of respondent's
houses
 Western Police District intervened suspended demolition
 Respondent's counsel argued demolition order not yet final and executory;
needed to be implemented
 Dec. 11, 1989: respondents filed appeal contesting the order of the Office of the Building
Official
 Dec. 12, 1989: petitioners once again hired workers and proceeded with demolition
 
Regional Trial Court (Branch 54, Manila)
 May 31, 1989: Respondents filed a suit for the "Declaration of Nullity of Sale" (Civil Case No.
89-49176)
o Seeking moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, untimely demolition of
houses
 RTC decision: DISMISSED complaint of respondents
o Ordered to pay petitioners moral damages
 
Court of Appeals
 REVERSED the decision of the RTC
 Ordered petitioners to pay respondents moral damages, attorney's fees; cost of suit
o Appellants (Pellosis) had 15 days from receipt of a copy of the same within which to
perfect an administrative appeal
o When demolition was commenced, neither the Resolution of the Building Official
nor the Demolition Order itself were final and executory.
 
ISSUE/S: Waiver of Rights/Abuse of Rights
 Whether or not petitioners acted in good faith in conformity with Article 19 of the Civil Code
 Issue is NOT about the question about the existence of the right or validity of the order of
demolition

HOLDING:
 No.

JUDGMENT:
 CA (assailed decision) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
o Modification: reducing the awards of damages
n
RATIONALE OF JUDGMENT:
 Order of demolition was not yet final and executory
o Respondents were deprived of their right for a 15 day appeal
 Petitioners violated Article 19 Civil Code
o 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.