RELLOSA v.
PELLOSIS (Steph)
August 9, 200 | Vitug, , J. | Special Torts: Abuse of Rights Doctrine
PETITIONER: VICENTE RELLOSA, CYNTHIA ORTEGA assisted by
husband Roberto Ortega.
RESPONDENTS: GONZALO PELLOSIS, INESITA MOSTE, and DANILO
RADAM
SUMMARY: Petitioner Vicente owns the land occupied by respondents by virtue
of a contract of lease. In 1986, Victor informed respondents that or being lessees
of the land for more than twenty (20) years, they would have a right of first
refusal to buy the land. However, the lot was then sold to Cynthia Ortega without
the knowledge of the respondents. Cynthia was able to secure title to the land and
subsequently diled a petition for condemnation with the Office of the Building
Official. The Building Official ordered for the demolition of the said houses. The
next day, Cynthia and Vicente hired workers to conduct the demolition of the
houses but was stopped by the counsel of the respondents, arguing that the order of
the Building Official was not yet final and executory, hence the demolition must be
likewise be suspended. However, despite the fact that the appeal of respondents
was still pending, petitioners still commenced with the demolition of the houses. As
a result, respondents filed a case for damages (moral and exemplary). RTC ruled in
favor of petitioners but the CA reversed and ruled for the respondents. It
emphasized that it is clear from the Building Code that respondents still have 15
days from which to file an administrative appeal. By prematurely commencing the
demolition, the petitioners effectively deprived the respondents of any redress to
their problem.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are liable for damages for prematurely commencing
with the demolition? YES. While it is indisputable that petitioner, as the owner of
the land, has all the right to enjoy and to exclude any person from the enjoyment
and disposal thereof, such right is not without limitation. At the time petitioners
implemented the order of demolition, barely five days after respondents
received a copy thereof, the same was not yet final and executory. The law
provided for a fifteen-day appeal period in favor of a party aggrieved by an
adverse ruling of the Office of the Building Official but by the precipitate action
of petitioners in demolishing the houses of respondents (prior to the expiration of
the period to appeal), the latter were effectively deprived of this recourse. The fact
that the order of demolition was later affirmed by the Department of Public
Works and Highways was of no moment.
DOCTRINE: The Court stressed that the abuse of rights rule established in Article
19 of the Civil Code requires every person to act with justice, to give everyone his
due, and to observe honesty and good faith. It simply means that when a right is
exercised in a manner which discards the said norms resulting in damage to
another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.
The action of petitioners up to the point where they were able to secure an order of
demolition was not condemnable but implementing the order unmindful of the
right of respondents to contest the ruling was a different matter and could
only beheld utterly indefensible.
FACTS:
1. Petitoner Vicente is the owner of a land occupied by respondents by virtue
of a contract of lease.
2. Respondents have built their houses on said land and introduced
improvements therein over the passage of time.
3. Sometime in 1986, Vicente informed respondents that or being lessees of
the land for more than twenty (20) years, they would have a right of
first refusal to buy the land.
4. However, in 1989, Victor sold the lot to Cynthia without the knowledge of
the respondents. Cynthia was able to secure title to the property in her
name.
5. Cynthia then filed a petition for condemnation with the Office of the
Building Official to remove the structures (houses of the respondents) on
the land.
 6. Meanwhile, respondents filed a petition for declaration of nullity of sale
with the RTC on the ground that such sale violated their right of first refusal
without their knowledge.
7. After due hearing in the condemnation case, the Office of the Building
Official ordered the demolition of the houses of the respondents.
8. By virtue of said order, Cynthia and Vicente hired workers to commence
the demolition of the houses. However, this failed to materialize since the
counsel for the respondents pleaded that demolition be suspended since
the order sought to be implemented was not yet final and executory.
9. Respondents then filed an appeal contesting the decision of the Office of the
Building Official.
10. Pending determination of the appeal of the respondents, petitioners once
again hired workers and proceeded with the demolition of the houses.
11. As a result, respondents filed a complaint for damages (moral and
exemplary, attorney’s fees) against petitioners for the untimely demolition
of their houses.
12. RTC: DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. Ordered respondents to pay
moral damages.
13. CA: REVERSED. Ordered petitioners to pay moral, exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and costs of suit. It emphasized that it is clear from the
Building Code that respondents still have 15 days from which to file an
administrative appeal. By prematurely commencing the demolition, the
petitioners effectively deprived the respondents of any redress to their
problem.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
1. The assailed order of the Building Official was eventually upheld by the
DPWH.
2. The structures subject matter of the demolition order were declared to be
dangerous structures by the Office of the Building Official and, as such,
could be abated to avoid danger to the public.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the petitioners are liable for damages for prematurely commencing
the demolition? – YES.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
MODIFIED by reducing the awards of P75,000.00 exemplary damages and of
P75,000.00 moral damages to each respondent reduced to P20,000.00 exemplary
damages and P20,000.00 moral damages for each respondent. In all other respects,
the decision of the appellate court is AFFIRMED. No costs.
RATIO:
1. A right is a power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a
constitution, statute or decisional law, or recognized as a result of long
usage, constitutive of a legally enforceable claim of one person against
another.
2. It is indisputable that petitioner, as the owner of the land, has all the right to
enjoy and to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
But this right is not without limitations.
3. The abuse of rights rule established in Article 19 of the Civil Code requires
every person to act with justice, to give everyone his due; and to observe
honesty and good faith.
4. When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms
resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which
the actor can be held accountable. In this instance, the issue is not so
much about the existence of the right or validity of the order of
demolition as the question of whether or not petitioners have acted in
conformity with, and not in disregard of, the standard set by Article 19
of the Civil Code.
5. At the time petitioners implemented the order of demolition, barely five
days after respondents received a copy thereof, the same was not yet final
and executory. The law provided for a fifteen-day appeal period in favor of
a party aggrieved by an adverse ruling of the Office of the Building Official
but by the precipitate action of petitioners in demolishing the houses of
respondents (prior to the expiration of the period to appeal), the latter were
effectively deprived of this recourse.
6. The fact that the order of demolition was later affirmed by the
 Department of Public Works and Highways was of no moment.
7. The action of petitioners up to the point where they were able to secure an
order of demolition was not condemnable but implementing the order
unmindful of the right of respondents to contest the ruling was a different
matter and could only be held utterly indefensible.