G.R. No. 193659, June 15, 2015
Sps. Fernando Vergara and Herminia Vergara vs. Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin

FACTS

Petitioners Sps. Vergara and respondent Erlinda Torrecampo Sonkin (representing Sps. Sonkin) are adjoining landowners in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The Vergara Property is higher in elevation than the Sonkin Property. In 2001, Sps. Vergara leveled their property by filling it with gravel, earth, and soil, raising its level further. Subsequently, Sps. Sonkin complained that water from the Vergara Property was leaking through the partition wall into their bedroom, causing damage. Sps. Sonkin demanded Sps. Vergara build a retaining wall and provide drainage, but these were unheeded, leading to a complaint for damages and injunction. Sps. Vergara defended that they left a one-meter distance from the partition wall when filling their property and that Sps. Sonkin’s own act of raising the partition wall made it susceptible to breakage. An expert witness testified that Sps. Vergara had a duty under the National Building Code to provide a retaining wall and proper drainage due to the landfill. A court-appointed commissioner found the filling materials “affected” the Sonkin house. The RTC held Sps. Vergara liable, ordering them to remove the landfill near the wall, erect a retaining wall, install drainage, and pay damages. The CA partially reversed, deleting the orders to remove the landfill and build a retaining wall, as well as the awards for actual and exemplary damages, but upheld the awards for moral damages and attorney’s fees. The CA found Sps. Sonkin contributorily negligent for building parts of their house directly abutting the partition wall, violating the National Building Code’s setback rule. Only Sps. Vergara appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in upholding the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.
2. Whether the CA should have ordered the demolition of the portion of Sps. Sonkin’s house adjoining the partition wall.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling in favor of Sps. Vergara.
1. The CA erred in upholding the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Court found Sps. Sonkin’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of their injury. Under Article 637 of the Civil Code, the lower estate (Sonkin Property) is obliged to receive waters naturally descending from the higher estate (Vergara Property). Sps. Sonkin disregarded this legal easement by building parts of their house directly against the partition wall, violating the National Building Code’s setback rule. Had they observed the rule, their house would not have been damaged. Their negligence bars recovery under Article 2179 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, moral damages under Article 2219 are not recoverable in quasi-delicts unless they resulted in physical injuries, which was not present here. Attorney’s fees are also not recoverable as the exception under Article 2208(2) does not apply, since Sps. Vergara’s act did not compel Sps. Sonkin to litigate with third parties.
2. The Court did not order the demolition. While Sps. Sonkin violated the setback rule, the Court declined to issue a demolition order, noting that such a directive was not specifically sought by Sps. Vergara in their pleadings before the Court and emphasizing that the power to order demolition must be exercised with caution.