GR 138964; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138964 ; August 9, 2001
VICENTE RELLOSA, CYNTHIA ORTEGA assisted by husband Roberto Ortega, petitioners, vs. GONZALO PELLOSIS, INESITA MOSTE, and DANILO RADAM, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were lessees of a parcel of land owned by Marta Reyes, later inherited by her son Victor Reyes. Victor informed respondents they had a right of first refusal to buy the land. In early 1989, without respondents’ knowledge, the land was sold to petitioner Cynthia Ortega, who secured title. On May 25, 1989, Ortega filed a condemnation case against the structures on the land with the Office of the Building Official. On May 31, 1989, respondents filed a suit for “Declaration of Nullity of the Sale” based on their impinged right of first refusal. On November 27, 1989, the Building Official issued a resolution ordering the demolition of respondents’ houses, served on respondents on December 7, 1989. On December 8, 1989, petitioners hired workers to commence demolition, which was halted by police intervention after respondents’ counsel pleaded the order was not yet final. On December 11, 1989, respondents filed their appeal. On December 12, 1989, petitioners again hired workers and proceeded with the demolition. Respondents then filed a case for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered respondents to pay moral damages. The Court of Appeals reversed and awarded damages to respondents.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are liable for damages for implementing the demolition order before it became final and executory, thereby depriving respondents of their right to appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with modification. The Court ruled that while petitioners had a right as owners and a valid demolition order, their act of implementing the order only five days after respondents received it, and before the expiration of the 15-day appeal period, constituted an abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code. This precipitate action effectively deprived respondents of their legal recourse to contest the adverse ruling. The fact that the order was later affirmed on appeal was immaterial to the determination of liability for the premature execution. However, the Court found the awarded damages excessive and reduced the moral and exemplary damages from P75,000.00 each to P20,000.00 for each respondent.