Spouses Custodio vs. CA, GR No.

116100 February 9, 1996

Facts:

Mabasa owns a parcel of land with a 2 door apartment. The property is surrounded by other
immovables. When Mabasa bought the land, there were tenants who were occupying the
property. One of the tenants vacated the land. Mabasa saw that thhere had been built an adobe
fence in the apartment in the first passageway that made it narrower. The fence was
constructed by the Santoses. Morato constructed her fence and extended it to the entire
passageway, therefore, the passageay was enclosed. The case was broguth to the trial court
and ordered the custodios and the Santoses to give Mabasa a permanet ingress and eggress to
the punlic street and asked Mabasa to pay Custodios and Santoses for damages.

Issue:
Whether or not Mabasa has the right to demand for a right of way

Ruling:

Yes, Mabasa has the right to demand for a right of way. A person has a right to the natural use
and enjoyment of his own property, according to his pleasure, for all the purposes to which such
property is usually applied. As a general rule, therefore, there is no cause of action for acts done
by one person upon his own property in a lawful and proper manner, although such acts
incidentally cause damage or an unavoidable loss to another, as such damage or loss
is damnum absque injuria.When the owner of property makes use thereof in the general and
ordinary manner in which the property is used, such as fencing or enclosing the same as in this
case, nobody can complain of having been injured, because the inconvenience arising from said
use can be considered as a mere consequence of community life
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 calleddamnum 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.