G.R. No.

188715 April 6, 2011

RODOLFO REGALA, Petitioner,

Regala and Carin are adjacent neighbors. Regala decided add a second storey to his house, under
the guise of merely building an extension to it, and asked Carin for permission to bore a hole
through a perimeter wall shared by both their respective properties, to which Carin verbally
consented.

Regala suffered from the dust and debris, hence, he filed a complaint before the City Engineers
Office for lack of building permit and before the Office of Barangay for encroachment, invasion of
privacy, damages arising from construction and illegal construction of scaffoldings in his (Regala)
property. However, Regala still continued the work despite several notices from the City Engineers
Office.

As no satisfactory agreement was reached at the last barangay conciliation proceedings in

In his complaint, respondent alleged in the main that, instead of boring just one hole as agreed
upon, petitioner demolished the whole length of the wall from top to bottom into five parts for the
purpose of constructing a second floor with terrace; and that debris and dust piled up on
respondent’s property ruining his garden and forcing him to, among other things, shut some of the
windows of his house. Respondent thus prayed for the award of moral and exemplary damages.

Regala answered that he was the sole and exclusive owner of the wall referred to as a perimeter
wall and that securing the consent was a mere formality to facilitate the issuance of a building
permit.

Las Piñas City RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent whom it awarded moral damages in
the sum of ₱100,000, exemplary damages of ₱100,000 and attorney’s fees of ₱50,000 plus costs of
suit.13

In finding for respondent, the trial court declared that, apart from the fact that petitioner knowingly
commenced the renovation of his house without the requisite building permit from the City
Engineer’s Office, he misrepresented to respondent his true intent of introducing renovations. For,
it found that instead of just boring a hole in the perimeter wall as originally proposed, petitioner
divided the wall into several sections to serve as a foundation for his firewall (which ended up
higher than the perimeter wall) and the second storey of his house.

The trial court further declared that respondent and his family had thus to contend with the noise,
dust and debris occasioned by the construction, which petitioner and his work crew failed to
address despite respondent’s protestations, by refusing to clean the mess or install the necessary
safety devices.
On appeal by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification
by reducing the award of moral and exemplary damages.

Whether or not Carin is entitled to damages arising the wrongful or illegal act or omission of Regala.

The trial court’s award of moral and exemplary damages, as affirmed by the appellate court, was
premised on the damage and suffering sustained by respondent arising from quasi-delict under
Article 217617 of the Civil Code. Thus the trial court explained:

Indeed, there was fault or negligence on the part of the defendant when he did not provide
sufficient safety measures to prevent causing a lot of inconvenience and disturbance to the plaintiff
and his family. The evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding the dirt or debris, as well as the
absence of devices or safety measures to prevent the same from falling inside plaintiff’s property,
were duly established. It did not help the cause of the defendant that he made a lot of
misrepresentations regarding the renovations on his house and he did not initially have a building
permit for the same. In fact, it was only after the construction works were completed that the said
permit was issued and upon payment of an administrative fine by the defendant.18

In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an exception rather than the rule. Moral
damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. To be entitled to such an
award, the claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has suffered damages and that the injury
causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 221919 and 222020 of the Civil Code.
Moreover, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission.
The claimant must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the acts of
the defendant.

In fine, an award of moral damages calls for the presentation of 1) evidence of besmirched
reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant; 2) a culpable
act or omission factually established; 3) proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is
the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is
predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the
Civil Code.21

In the present case, respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the injuries
he sustained were the proximate effect of petitioner’s act or omission. It thus becomes necessary to
instead look into the manner by which petitioner carried out his renovations to determine whether
this was directly responsible for any distress respondent may have suffered since the law requires
that a wrongful or illegal act or omission must have preceded the damages sustained by the
claimant.

It bears noting that petitioner was engaged in the lawful exercise of his property rights to introduce
renovations to his abode. While he initially did not have a building permit and may have
misrepresented his real intent when he initially sought respondent’s consent, the lack of the permit
was inconsequential since it only rendered petitioner liable to administrative sanctions or
penalties.1avvphi1
Petitioner, however, cannot steer clear from any liability whatsoever. Respondent and his family’s
rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property have, at the very least, been inconvenienced from
the incident borne of petitioner’s construction work. Any pecuniary loss or damage suffered by
respondent cannot be established as the records are bereft of any factual evidence to establish the
same. Nominal damages may thus be adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, respondent
herein, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, petitioner herein, may be vindicated
or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

Decision of the Court of Appeals is VACATED.