View full case

CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION v. SPS. REYNALDO

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco, owners of Lots 68 and 69, and the spouses Frank and Teresita Cuaso, owners of Lot 65, all located at Corinthian Gardens Subdivision in Quezon City. Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. (Corinthian) manages the subdivision. Before the construction of the Cuasos' house on Lot 65, a relocation survey by Geodetic Engineer Democrito De Dios was necessary. Corinthian recommended Engr. De Dios, who had conducted previous surveys for the subdivision. However, it was discovered that the Cuasos' perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos' Lot 69 by 87 square meters. The Tanjangcos demanded that the Cuasos demolish the fence, but the Cuasos refused. The Tanjangcos then filed a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery of Possession with Damages. The Cuasos, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint against Corinthian, C.B. Paraz Construction Co., Inc. (C.B. Paraz), and Engr. De Dios, alleging negligence on their part. The RTC ruled in favor of the Tanjangcos, ordering the Cuasos to either buy the encroached portion or demolish the fence. The RTC also held C.B. Paraz liable for damages. Corinthian and Engr. De Dios were dismissed from the case. The parties appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC decision, holding the Cuasos liable for land-grabbing. The CA allowed the Tanjangcos to exercise their rights under the New Civil Code. The Cuasos' appeal was dismissed, and Corinthian, C.B. Paraz, and Engr. De Dios were found negligent and ordered to contribute to the judgment sums. Only Corinthian filed a motion for reconsideration, and the Cuasos later sought to adopt Corinthian's motion, which was denied by the CA.

Corinthian filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against the CA decision and included the Cuasos as respondents. The CA denied Corinthian's Motion for Reconsideration, and the decision became final and executory as to the Cuasos. The Tanjangcos moved for the execution of the judgment against the Cuasos, specifically the demolition of the fence, which was granted by the RTC. The Cuasos filed an Opposition and a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC. They also applied for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court to stop the demolition, claiming that it would cause them irreparable damage. The Cuasos argued that it was necessary to determine Corinthian's negligence in approving the building plan and whether they acted in good faith in constructing the house before any execution could be carried out. The Tanjangcos opposed the Cuasos' application, asserting that since they did not appeal the adverse decision against them and had issued a manager's check to pay the money judgment, they were estopped from questioning the enforcement of the CA decision. The Supreme Court denied the Cuasos' application for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

The petitioner in the third set of facts filed a complaint for accion reinvindicatoria and damages against the respondents, claiming ownership of a property that the respondents unlawfully occupied. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the respondents to vacate the property. However, the respondents appealed the decision to the CA, which reversed the trial court's judgment. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in reversing the trial court's decision without presenting sufficient evidence. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to raise any material issues justifying a reversal of the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to a reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. is liable to pay 5% of the judgment money to Sps. Tanjangco on account of the encroachment made by the Cuasos.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals has legal basis to unilaterally increase the amount prayed for in the Complaint as reasonable compensation for the use and enjoyment of the portion of the lot encroached upon.

  3. Whether Corinthian Garden is guilty of negligence in approving the building plans of the Cuasos.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in deviating from the findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

  5. Whether Corinthian's failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter wall into Tanjangcos' property, despite conducting an inspection, constitutes negligence.

  6. Whether the court may fix the reasonable amount of rent for the use and occupation of a disputed property based solely on its judicial notice or if supporting evidence is required.

RULING:

  1. Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. is held liable to pay 5% of the judgment money to Sps. Tanjangco on account of the encroachment made by the Cuasos.

  2. The Court of Appeals does not have legal basis to unilaterally increase the amount prayed for in the Complaint as reasonable compensation for the use and enjoyment of the portion of the lot encroached upon.

  3. Yes, Corinthian Garden is guilty of negligence in approving the building plans of the Cuasos. The Court held that Corinthian failed to exercise the requisite diligence in ensuring that the Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and Regulations. The approval of the building plans, even if it was a "table inspection," does not exempt Corinthian from liability. The Court emphasized that Corinthian cannot justify or excuse its negligence and that its approval of the building plans is still considered an approval tainted with negligence.

  4. No, the CA did not commit reversible error in deviating from the findings of fact of the RTC. The Court reviewed the evidence on record and concluded that the CA's findings and conclusions were substantiated and more in accord with law and reason. Therefore, the CA decision will be upheld.

  5. Corinthian's failure to prevent the encroachment of the Cuasos' perimeter wall into Tanjangcos' property, despite conducting an inspection, constitutes negligence. The approval granted to Corinthian members is not a mere formality, and compliance with the rules and sanctions for violations are mandatory. Corinthian's imprimatur on the construction of the Cuasos' wall assured the Cuasos that everything was in order. Therefore, Corinthian's negligence contributed to the injury suffered by the Tanjangcos.

  6. The court cannot simply rely on its judicial notice in determining the reasonable amount of rent for a disputed property. The court must consider supporting evidence presented by the parties. While courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent, they must base their decision on the evidence adduced by the parties. In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that rent was due to the Tanjangcos based on the evidence presented. The monthly rental fixed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An injunction to stay a final and executory decision is unavailing except only after a showing that facts and circumstances exist which would render execution unjust or inequitable, or that a change in the situation of the parties occurred.

  • A party who does not appeal or file a petition for certiorari is not entitled to any affirmative relief.

  • An appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed.

  • A negligent act is an inadvertent act done carelessly from a lack of ordinary prudence.

  • Negligence is the failure to exercise that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation.

  • The existence of negligence is not determined by the personal judgment of the actor but by what would be considered reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence.

  • The approval of building plans, even if it is only a "table inspection," does not exempt the approving party from liability if negligence is involved.

  • The one who receives the benefits must also share the burdens and responsibilities.

  • Compliance with rules and regulations is mandatory, and sanctions for violations cannot be disregarded.

  • The court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy but may only take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration.

  • Courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for a disputed property, but they must base their decision on supporting evidence presented by the parties.