Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Facts: The spouses Luz San Pedro (Luz) and Kenichiro Tominaga (Kenichiro) are the owners of a parcel

of land, on which their house was erected, described as Lot 15 !"#"$ with an area of % s&uare meters situated in 'aranga( )alis, *uiguinto, 'ulacan+ Said propert( was ac&uired b( them from one *uillermo ,arciso as e-idenced b( a "Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa" dated )arch 1., 1!!/+ The spouses Luz and Kenichiro then contracted the ser-ices of 0ran1 'atal (0ran1) who represented himself as a sur-e(or to conduct a sur-e( of their lot for the sum of P2,5 + + 3s Luz and Kenichiro wanted to enclose their propert(, the( again procured the ser-ices of 0ran1 for an additional fee ofP1,5 + in order to determine the e4act boundaries of the same b( which the( will base the construction of their perimeter fence+ #onse&uentl(, 0ran1 placed concrete monuments mar1ed P+S+ on all corners of the lot which were used as guides b( Luz and Kenichiro in erecting a concrete fence measuring about eight (.) feet in height and cost them P/5 , + to build+ Sometime in 1!!2, a complaint was lodged against Luz and Kenichiro before the baranga( on the ground that the northern portion of their fence allegedl( encroached upon a designated right"of"wa( 1nown as Lot 15 !"5+ 6pon -erification with another sur-e(or, Luz and Kenichiro found that their wall indeed o-erlapped the ad7oining lot+ The( also disco-ered that it was not 0ran1 but his wife 8rlinda 'atal (8rlinda), who is a licensed geodetic engineer+ 5uring their confrontations before the baranga(, 0ran1 admitted that he made a mista1e and offered to share in the e4penses for the demolition and reconstruction of the &uestioned portion of Luz and Kenichiro9s fence+ :e howe-er failed to deli-er on his word, thus the filing of the instant suit+ ;n their defense, the defendants"spouses 0ran1 and 8rlinda 'atal submitted that 0ran1 ne-er represented himself to be a licensed geodetic engineer+ ;t was 8rlinda who super-ised her husband9s wor1 <and t=hat the house and lot of plaintiffs, Luz and Kenichiro, were alread( fenced e-en before the( were contracted to do a resur-e( of the same and the la(ing out of the concrete monuments+ The spouses 0ran1 and 8rlinda also refuted the spouses Luz9s and Kenichiro9s allegation of negligence and a-erred that the sub7ect complaint was instituted to harass them+ $

>n )a( $1, /

1, the ?T# rendered its 5ecision, the dispositi-e portion of which reads@

A:8?80>?8, 7udgment is hereb( rendered in fa-or of plaintiffs and against defendants, as follows@ 1+ >rdering the defendants <petitioners= to pa( to plaintiffs <respondents= the sum of P2,5 + as refund for their professional fees b( reason of the erroneous relocation sur-e( of the propert( in &uestionB /+ >rdering the defendants to pa( to plaintiffs the sum of Three :undred Thousand Pesos (P$ actual damagesB $+ >rdering the defendants to pa( to plaintiffs the sum of P5 , + as attorne(9s feesB and , + ) as

C+ >rdering the defendants to pa( to plaintiffs the costs of this suit+ S> >?58?85+C

?egarding the issue whether the petitioners failed to e4ercise due care and diligence in the conduct of the resur-e( which e-entuall( caused damage to the respondents, the ?T# held@ The ?T# found that indeed the perimeter fence constructed b( the respondents encroached on the right"of" wa( in &uestionB that the preponderance of e-idence supports the finding that the encroachment was caused b( the negligence of the petitionersB that, in particular, respondents constructed the fence based on the concrete c(clone monuments that were installed b( petitioner 0ran1 'atal and after he ga-e his assurance that the( can proceed accordingl(B that the negligence in the installation of the monuments was due to the fact that

petitioner 8rlinda 'atal, the one trul( &ualified, did not pro-ide the needed super-ision o-er the wor1B and, lastl(, that the testimonies of the petitioners on the whole were not credible+ The petitioners appealed to the #3+ >n September /!, / decision in its entiret(+2 $, the #3 rendered its 5ecision affirming the ?T#

;n concurring with the findings of the ?T#, the #3 in addition held that the petitioners cannot claim that the error of the construction of the fence was due to the unilateral act of respondents in building the same without their consent, since the former ga-e their word that the arrangement of the monuments of title accuratel( reflected the boundaries of the lotB and that, as a result, the northern portion of the fence had to be demolished and rebuilt in order to correct the error+ :ence, the instant Petition assigning the following errors@
;+ The #ourt of 3ppeals erred in ruling for the ?espondents and basing its decision <o=n the following 7urisprudence@ (a) D<3= part(, ha-ing performed affirmati-e acts upon which another person based his subse&uent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the pre7udice of the latter+ (Pureza -s+ #ourt of 3ppeals, /! S#?3 11 )DB and (b) D0indings of fact made b( the trial court <are= entitled to great weight and respect+ (Lopez -s+ #ourt of 3ppeals, $// S#?3 2.2)+ ;;+ The #ourt of 3ppeals erred in ruling in fa-or of ?espondents b( premising its 5ecision on <a= misapprehension of facts amounting to gra-e abuse of discretion + + + which is also a ground for a Petition for ?e-iew+%

The petition must fail+ The petitioners insist that there had been no error in their resur-e(, but rather, the error occurred in respondents9 fencingB that the pro4imate cause of the damage had been respondents9 own negligence such that the fencing was done unilaterall( and solel( b( them without the prior appro-al and super-ision of the petitioners+ 3nd to 7ustif( their case, the petitioners argue that the courts a quo misapprehended the facts+ 3ccordingl(, the( as1 this #ourt to re-iew findings of fact+ 3 re-iew of the factual findings of the #3 and the ?T# are matters not ordinaril( re-iewable in a petition for re-iew on certiorari+. Aell"established is the rule that factual findings of the trial court and the #3 are entitled to great weight and respect! and will not be disturbed on appeal sa-e in e4ceptional circumstances,1 none of which obtains in the present case+ This #ourt must stress that the findings of fact of the #3 are conclusi-e on the parties and carr( e-en more weight when these coincide with the factual findings of the trial court,11 as in this case+ The #ourt will not weigh the e-idence all o-er again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totall( de-oid of support or are clearl( erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion+1/ The petitioners failed to demonstrate this point+ >n the contrar(, the finding of the courts a quo that the damage caused to the respondents was due to petitioners9 negligence is sufficientl( supported b( the e-idence on record+ 0or these reasons, the petitioner9s contentions bear no import+ Culpa, or negligence, ma( be understood in two different senses@ either as culpa aquiliana, which is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gi-es rise to an obligation between

two persons not formall( bound b( an( other obligation, or as culpa contractual, which is the fault or negligence incident in the performance of an obligation which alread( e4isted, and which increases the liabilit( from such alread( e4isting obligation+1$ Culpa aquiliana is go-erned b( 3rticle /1%2 of the #i-il #ode and the immediatel( following 3rticlesB while culpa contractual is go-erned b( 3rticles 11% to 11%C of the same #ode+1C 3rticles 11% and 11%$ pro-ide@
3?T+ 11% + Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilt( of fraud, negligence, or dela(, and those who in an( manner contra-ene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages+ 3?T+ 11%$+ The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is re&uired b( the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place+ Ahen negligence shows bad faith, the pro-isions of articles 11%1 and // /, paragraph /, shall appl(+ ;f the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be obser-ed in the performance, that which is e4pected of a good father of a famil( shall be re&uired+

;n the present case, it is clear that the petitioners, in carr(ing out their contractual obligations, failed to e4ercise the re&uisite diligence in the placement of the mar1ings for the concrete perimeter fence that was later constructed+ The placement of the mar1ings had been done solel( b( petitioner 0ran1 'atal who is not a geodetic engineer+ ;t was later disco-ered that it was not he but his wife, petitioner 8rlinda 'atal, who is the licensed geodetic engineer and who is, therefore, the one &ualified to do the wor1+ Petitioner 0ran1 'atal9s installation of the concrete c(clone monuments had been done without the ade&uate super-ision of his wife, 8rlinda+ 3s a result, the placement of the monuments did not accuratel( reflect the dimensions of the lot+ The respondents, upon assurance gi-en b( petitioner 0ran1 'atal that the( could proceed with the construction of the perimeter fence b( rel(ing on the purported accurac( of the placement of the monuments, erected their fence which turned out to encroach on an ad7acent easement+ 'ecause of the encroachment, the respondents had to demolish and reconstruct the fence and, thus, suffered damages+ The #ourt affirms and adopts the findings of the #3, to wit@
?ecords show that the ser-ices of the <petitioners= 0ran1 and 8rlinda were initiall( contracted to segregate Luz and Kenichiro9s propert( from its ad7oining lots+ Ahen the <respondent= spouses Luz and Kenichiro planned to fence the segregated lot, the( again commissioned <petitioners= 0ran1 and 8rlinda to conduct a resur-e( in order to determine the precise boundaries of their propert( upon which the( will base the construction of their fence+ ;t was also shown that in the course of the resur-e(, 0ran1 caused the installation of monuments of title on the four (C) corners of Luz and Kenichiro9s propert( and that he instructed them to 7ust follow the same in building their fence+ <Petitioners= 0ran1 and 8rlinda cannot thus -alidl( claim that the error in the construction of the northern portion of the fence was due to the spouses Luz and Kenichiro9s act of building the same without their consent+ This is considering that the former led the latter to belie-e the purported accurac( of the resur-e( and e4actness of the lot9s boundaries based on the monuments of title which the( installed+ ;t has been ruled that D<3= part(, ha-ing performed affirmati-e acts upon which another person based his subse&uent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the pre7udice of the latter+D (Pureza v. Court of Appeals, 2 ! "C#A $$!% The foregoing clearl( supports the findings of the ?T# that the spouses 'atal committed a mista1e in the conduct of their business that led to the encroachment of plaintiffs"appellees9 fence on the ad7oining alle("lot+ 3s a result, the northern portion ha<d= to be torn down and rebuilt in order to correct the error in its original construction+ The defendants"appellants cannot be e4cused from the effects of their actions in the sur-e( of plaintiffs"appellees9 lot+ Ae therefore concur with the findings of the ?T# holding defendants"appellants liable for damages in the case at bar+ D0indings of fact made b( the trial court is entitled to great weight and respect+D (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, &22 "C#A '('%15

'eing guilt( of a breach of their contract, petitioners are liable for damages suffered b( the respondents in accordance with 3rticles 11% and // 1 of the #i-il #ode,12 which state@
3rt+ 11% + Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilt( of fraud, negligence, or dela( and those who in an( manner contra-ene the tenor thereof are liable for damages 3rt+ // 1+ ;n contracts and &uasi"contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable conse&uences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties ha-e foreseen or could ha-e reasonabl( foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted+ ;n case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which ma( be reasonabl( attributed to the non"performance of the obligation+

Thus, the #ourt agrees with the #39s affirmance of the findings of the ?T# on the matter of damages, to wit@
*oing now to the claims for damages, 8ngr+ 3rnold )artin testified on his computation and estimate (84hibits D*D and D*"1) that the total cost for the demolition and reconstruction of the perimeter fence in &uestion would be in the total amount of PC/.,12$+! , and this was not at all disputed b( the defendants, whose counsel wai-ed cross"e4amination+ This estimate is practicall( double the amount of the cost of constructing said fence as testified to b( plaintiff Luz San Pedro as she was told that it is much costlier to demolish and reconstruct a fence than to simpl( erect one because of the added e4pense in-ol-ed in tearing it down and hauling its debris+ >n the other hand, said plaintiff stated that the iron decorati-e grills of the fence, which is re"usable, cost her P5 , + , and it is onl( proper to deduct said amount from the total cost of reconstructing the fence in &uestion+ 3t the same time, some figures in the said estimate appear to be &uite e4cessi-e, such as the estimated cost for demolition which was &uoted at P/5, + in addition to the amount of e4ca-ation priced at P$ , + and the cost of hauling of scrap materials atP1 , + + The court belie-es that the sum of P$ , + for the demolition and reconstruction of the fence in &uestion would be reasonable considering that the original cost for its construction was onl( about P/ , + , and considering further that its iron grills are re"usable+ The plaintiffs are li1ewise entitled to reco-er attorne(9s fees considering that the( were compelled b( the defendants to resort to court action in order to protect their rights and interest, as defendants, particularl( defendant 0ran1 'atal, failed and refused repeatedl( to e-en attend the confrontation of conciliation meetings arranged between him and the plaintiffs b( the )aranga* authorities concerned, and to honor his promise to help in shouldering the cost of reconstructing the fence in &uestion+ >n the other hand, there is no legal or factual bases for the claim of the plaintiffs for moral or e4emplar( damages as there was no showing at all that defendants acted with malice or in bad faith+ ;n a long line of cases, we ha-e consistentl( ruled that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded+ (? E ' Suret( ;nsurance #o+ -+ ;ntermediate #ourt of 3ppeals, 1/! S#?3 %$2B *uita -+ #ourt of 3ppeals, 1$! S#?3 5%2)+1%

A:8?80>?8, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed 5ecision and ?esolution of the #ourt of 3ppeals are AFFIRMED+ #osts against petitioners+ SO ORDERED+