CUSTODIO ET AL vs.

COUPRT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996

TOPIC: Damages; Damnum Absque Injuria

THESIS STATEMENT:
Custodio, et al filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of Court of
Appeals which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court and CA’s Resolution denying
the Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTS:
 Pacifico Mabasa owns a parcel of land with two-door apartment on it located behind the
properties of the Custodios and Santoses at P. Burgos Street, Palingon, Tipas, Taguig
City, Metro Manila.
 This property was acquired by Mabasa through contract of sale with Spouses Mamerto
Rayos and Teodora Quintero in 1981.
 There are two passage ways leading to Mabasa’s house:
o One which passes through the properties of Custodios and Santoses; and
o Other one which passes through the property of Morato.
 In 1982, the Santoses built an adobe fence around their property and Morato built also an
adobe fence depriving Mabasa the passage to their house.
 With these, Mabasa filed for grant of easement of right of way against Custodio et al
before the RTC Pasig in 1982.

RULING OF RTC:
RTC ruled in favor of Mabasa ordering Custodio et al to give Mabasa a permanent easement of
right of way and also ordering Mabasa to pay a sum of Php 8,000.00 to the Custodios and
Santoses for payment of just compensation.
Aggrieved, Mabasa filed an Appeal before the Court of Appeals to appeal for the award of
damages in their favor due to Custodio et al’s narrowing of the passage resulting to Mabasa’s
loss of tenants.

RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

The CA ruled in favor of Mabasa and granted their appeal affirming the Decision of RTC’s
Decision with modification imposing and ordering Custodios and Santoses to pay Mabasa the
following damages:
 Actual Damages – Php 65,000.00
 Moral Damages – Php 30,000.00
 Exemplary Damages – Php 10,000.00
Hence, Custodio, et al filed this present Petition for Review on certiorari with the SC.

ISSUE:
WON the amount of damages to Mabasa is proper. – NO.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The SC ruled in favor of the Custodio, et al. The award of damages to Mabasa is not proper.
Petition granted.
This case constitutes Damnum Absque Injuria in which the injury or damage that may have been
sustained by reason of rightful exercise of right is a loss without legal injury. To warrant
recovery of damages, the action done must not only be hurtful or results to loss but also it must
be a wrongful act constituting a breach of duty it owes to another person.
In the case at bar, the Court held that Custodio et al had not violated the principle of abuse of
right according to Art. 21 of the Civil Code. For Custodio et al to be liable in accordance with
the aforementioned provision, there must be:
 That an act acted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy;
 That the act should be willful; and
 That damage or injury is present.
Building a fence by Custodio et al is a valid exercise of right to enjoy and dispose a thing like the
right to enclose and fence their property without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. By
the time that Custodio et al constructed the fence, there are no servitudes existed as proven by the
judgment of RTC to grant Mabasa the compulsory right of way and ordering the same to pay just
compensation.
Custodio et al have the absolute right over their property and the damage done incidental to the
exercise of right in a proper manner does not constitute an injury but a mere consequence of
community life.
Hence, the CA erred in awarding damages to Mabasa for the law affords no remedy for damages
resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal wrong or injury.