Kathryn Punongbayan-Akmad

Bulacan State University

College of Law
Title: Custodio v. C.A.
Facts: Respondents owned a parcel of land wherein a two-door apartment was erected. Said
property was surrounded by other immovables owned by petitioners, spouses Custodio and
spouses Santos. As an access to P. Burgos Street from the subect property, there are two
possible passageways. !he first passageway is appro"imately one meter wide and is about #$
meters distant from %abasa&s residence to P. Burgos Street. Such path is passing in between
the previously mentioned row of houses. !he second passageway is about ' meters in width
and length from plaintiff %abasa&s residence to P. Burgos Street( it is about #) meters. *n
passing thru said passageway, a less than a meter wide path through the septic tan+ and with ,-
) meters in length, has to be traversed. Petitioners constructed an adobe fence in the first
passageway ma+ing it narrower in width. Said adobe fence was first constructed by defendants
Santoses along their property which is also along the first passageway. -efendant %orato
constructed her adobe fence and even e"tended said fence in such a way that the entire
passageway was enclosed. As a result, the tenants left the apartment because there was no
longer a permanent access to the public street. Respondents then filed an action for the grant of
an easement of right of way. !he trial court ordered the petitioner to give respondents a
permanent access to the public street and that in turn, the respondent will pay a sum of Php
.,$$$.$$ to the petitioner as an indemnity for the permanent use of the passageway. /n appeal
by the respondent to the CA, the decision of the trial court was affirmed, such that a right of
way and an award of actual, moral and e"emplary damages were given to the respondents.
0ence, this petition.
Issue: 1hether or not the award of damages is proper2
Held: 3o. !o warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal
wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. 1rong
without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since
damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the inury caused by a breach or wrong.
!here is a material distinction between damages and inury. *nury is the illegal invasion of a
legal right( damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the inury, and damages are the
recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. !hus, there can be damage
without inury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a
legal duty. !hese situations are often called damnum abs4ue inuria. *n order that a plaintiff
may maintain an action for the inuries of which he complains, he must establish that such
inuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. !here must
be a concurrence of inury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it.
*n the instant case, although there was damage, there was no legal inury. Contrary to the claim
of respondents, petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of right. *n
order that the principle of abuse of right provided in Article #5 of the Civil Code can be
applied, it is essential that the following re4uisites concur6 758 !he defendant should have acted
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy( 7#8 !he acts should be
willful( and 7'8 !here was damage or inury to the plaintiff. !he act of petitioners in
5
Kathryn Punongbayan-Akmad
Bulacan State University
College of Law
constructing a fence within their lot is a valid e"ercise of their right as owners, hence not
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. !he law recogni9es in the owner the right to
enoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. *t is
within the right of petitioners, as owners, to enclose and fence their property. Article :'$ of the
Civil Code provides that ;7e8very owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means
of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes
constituted thereon.<
At the time of the construction of the fence, the lot was not subect to any servitudes. !here
was no easement of way e"isting in favor of private respondents, either by law or by contract.
!he fact that respondents had no e"isting right over the said passageway is confirmed by the
very decision of the trial court granting a compulsory right of way in their favor after payment
of ust compensation. *t was only that decision which gave private respondents the right to use
the said passageway after payment of the compensation and imposed a corresponding duty on
petitioners not to interfere in the e"ercise of said right. !he proper e"ercise of a lawful right
cannot constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie, although the act may result in
damage to another, for no legal right has been invaded. /ne may use any lawful means to
accomplish a lawful purpose and though the means adopted may cause damage to another, no
cause of action arises in the latter&s favor. An inury or damage occasioned thereby is damnum
abs4ue inuria. !he courts can give no redress for hardship to an individual resulting from
action reasonably calculated to achieve a lawful means.
#