GR 116100; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116100 ; February 9, 1996
SPOUSES CRISTINO and BRIGIDA CUSTODIO and SPOUSES LITO and MARIA CRISTINA SANTOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO C. MABASA and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, BRANCH 181, respondents.
FACTS
The heirs of Pacifico Mabasa filed an action for an easement of right of way against the petitioners, the Custodio and Santos spouses. Mabasa’s property was enclosed by the petitioners’ lots, with access to the public street available only through two passageways between the houses. The petitioners constructed adobe fences along these passageways, severely restricting ingress and egress. Mabasa’s tenants subsequently vacated the premises. The trial court granted the easement, ordering the petitioners to provide permanent access and requiring Mabasa to pay indemnity. The petitioners did not appeal this judgment.
Only Mabasa’s heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, solely on the issue of the trial court’s failure to award damages. The appellate court affirmed the grant of the easement but modified the decision by awarding substantial actual, moral, and exemplary damages against the petitioners. The petitioners then filed this petition, challenging both the propriety of the easement and the award of damages.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding damages to the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ award of damages and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. On the first issue, the petitioners are barred from questioning the grant of the easement. Having failed to appeal the trial court’s decision, they are deemed to have accepted it, and that portion of the judgment has become final and immutable.
Regarding damages, the Court held that the petitioners’ act of constructing fences on their own property, while ultimately necessitating the grant of an easement, did not constitute a legal wrong or actionable injury. The petitioners were merely making ordinary use of their property. The inconvenience suffered by the respondents, though real, is damnum absque injuria—a damage without a legal injury. A lawful exercise of a right, even if it causes damage to another, does not give rise to a cause of action provided no legal right is violated. The award of damages was therefore improper, as the petitioners’ acts were a legitimate, if inconvenient, use of their own land, not a tortious act warranting monetary compensation.