View full case

LINDA RANA v. TERESITA LEE WONG

FACTS:

The case involves the co-ownership of a residential land in Lahug, Cebu City between Teresita Lee Wong, and Spouses Shirley and Ruben Ang Ong. The adjacent lots are owned by Spouses Wilson and Rosarlo Uy, and Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana. In 1997, the Rana property owners elevated and cemented a portion of the road between their property and the Wong-Ong property, as well as backfilled a portion of the perimeter fence without erecting a retaining wall. Wong, Sps. Ong, and Sps. Uy filed a complaint against the Rana property owners seeking the declaration of the elevated portion and backfilling as a nuisance. The trial court allowed Wong, et al. to develop the Wong-Ong property with access to the road, but they leveled the road beyond the scope of the order. As a result, Sps. Rana filed a supplemental answer seeking the restoration of the road and damages. Sps. Rana also filed another case against Sps. Uy for encroachment. The cases were consolidated.

In another case, the Uy family admitted to encroaching around 3 sq. m. on the Rana property and claimed that the Rana family intruded on 7 sq. m. of their property. They filed a counterclaim against the Rana family seeking damages. The trial court appointed commissioners to conduct a resurvey of the properties and ruled that both parties acted in bad faith. The court directed the Rana family to construct a retaining wall at their own expense due to the backfilling they did, which constituted a nuisance. Another case filed by the Rana family against the Uy family was dismissed by the trial court due to a lack of evidence of bad faith. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeals were denied. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were also denied. The Rana family filed a petition questioning the trial court's failure to find the Uy family guilty of malice and bad faith. The Uy family, on the other hand, filed a petition questioning the trial court's application of the in pari delicto doctrine and failure to find the Rana family guilty of bad faith.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elevated and cemented portion built by the respondents is a nuisance per se.

  2. Whether the demolition of the elevated and cemented portion by the petitioners was justified.

  3. Whether damages should be awarded to the respondents.

  4. Whether Sps. Rana are entitled to damages.

  5. Whether Sps. Uy are entitled to recover the encroached portion of the Rana property.

  6. Whether either party is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

  7. Whether the elements of malicious prosecution were proven in this case.

  8. Whether the parties are entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

  9. Whether the parties are entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

RULING:

  1. The elevated and cemented portion is not a nuisance per se. It was built primarily for the convenience of the respondents and does not injure the health or comfort of the community.

  2. Since the elevated and cemented portion is not a nuisance per se, the petitioners' demolition of it was not justified. The respondents' right to be heard before the court was violated.

  3. Damages, specifically nominal damages for the violation of the respondents' right to be heard and temperate damages for the loss caused by the demolition, should be awarded to the respondents.

  4. Sps. Rana are entitled to damages. However, their entitlement to the damages is offset by the damages they caused to Sps. Uy due to their construction of the subject portion without prior consultation. Thus, Sps. Rana should be held liable for nominal damages.

  5. Sps. Uy are entitled to recover the encroached portion of the Rana property. The court-appointed commissioner's report established that Sps. Uy's perimeter fence intruded on 2 sq. m. of the Rana property. Therefore, Sps. Rana are entitled to the return of the encroached portion.

  6. Neither party is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The filing of the complaints by both parties was not shown to have been precipitated by malice or bad faith. Malicious prosecution requires the presence of malice and absence of probable cause, which were not proven in this case.

  7. The elements of malicious prosecution were not proven in this case, therefore, the claims for malicious prosecution are denied.

  8. The parties are not entitled to moral and exemplary damages as it was not proven that the damage caused resulted in physical suffering, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, or any similar injury. Moreover, the present controversies do not fall within the cases enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

  9. The parties are not entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses as none of the circumstances under Article 2208 of the Civil Code were proven.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A nuisance is defined as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else that injures or endangers the health or safety of others, annoys or offends the senses, shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality, obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or hinders or impairs the use of property. It is a comprehensive term that encompasses acts that interfere with the rights of citizens.

  • Nuisances are classified as either public nuisances, which affect a community or neighborhood, or private nuisances, which violate only private rights and produce damages to a few persons.

  • Nuisances can also be classified as either nuisances per se, which affect immediate safety and can be summarily abated, or nuisances per accidens, which depend on certain conditions and circumstances and require a hearing before abatement.

  • Unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated and judicial intervention is necessary.

  • A private person whose property rights are invaded or unreasonably interfered with by the act, omission, establishment, business, or condition of another person's property may file a civil action to recover personal damages. Abatement may be sought through a civil action if the necessary requirements for summary abatement or for a nuisance per se are not met. The remedies of abatement and damages are cumulative and can both be demanded.

  • In pari delicto principle does not apply to inexistent and void contracts.

  • An action for the recovery of property requires proof of the identity of the thing and ownership thereof.

  • Malicious prosecution requires the presence of malice and absence of probable cause.

  • Malicious prosecution requires the elements of malice and absence of probable cause, as well as proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person.

  • The mere filing of a suit that turns out to be unsuccessful does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution.

  • Moral damages can be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission, and fall within the cases enumerated under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

  • Exemplary damages are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to other forms of damages.

  • Attorney's fees and litigation expenses can be awarded when the attendance of any of the circumstances under Article 2208 of the Civil Code is proven.