G.R. No. 161188 ; June 13, 2008
Heirs of Purisima Nala, represented by their attorney-in-fact Efegenia Digna Duyan, petitioners, vs. Artemio Cabansag, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Artemio Cabansag filed a complaint for damages against Purisima Nala and her counsel, Atty. Alexander del Prado. Cabansag alleged he purchased a 50-square meter lot from spouses Gomez in 1990. In 1991, he received demand letters from Atty. del Prado, acting for Nala, claiming ownership of the property and demanding payment of rentals from 1987, with threats of legal action. Cabansag contended these baseless demands caused him moral damages and forced him to litigate.
Nala defended that the property was part of an 800-square meter lot owned by her late husband. She claimed the Gomez spouses held a 400-square meter portion, which included the subject lot, under an implied trust for her children, and that Cabansag was merely a lessee. She asserted the demand letters were sent in good faith to protect her property rights, as the Gomez spouses had failed to remit rentals and were claiming ownership.

ISSUE

Whether the act of Nala, through her counsel, in sending demand letters to Cabansag constituted an abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code, making her liable for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, the heirs of Nala, and dismissed the complaint for damages. The legal logic centered on the principle of abuse of rights under Article 19. For liability to attach, the act must be performed with intent to injure, done in bad faith, or executed in a manner exceeding the bounds of propriety, causing damage to another. The Court found no such abuse in Nala’s actions.
Nala was asserting a bona fide claim of ownership and a right to collect rentals based on her belief in an implied trust and her late husband’s ownership. Sending demand letters through counsel is a legitimate step in pursuing one’s legal rights. The fact that a separate reconveyance case (CA-G.R. CV No. 49163) was eventually decided in favor of Nala and her heirs, with the Court of Appeals ordering the property reconveyed to them, substantiated the legitimacy of her claim. This subsequent ruling confirmed she had a valid interest to protect. Her actions were therefore a prudent exercise of a right, not a malicious act intended solely to cause harm to Cabansag. Since there was no proof of malice, bad faith, or willful intent to injure, the essential elements for abuse of right were absent. Consequently, the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees had no legal basis.