You are on page 1of 14

Costs against private respondents.

_______________
SO ORDERED. * THIRD DIVISION.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, 155
Nachuraand Reyes, JJ., concur. VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 155
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs.
and set aside. Tanjangco
Notes.Simulation is defined as the declaration of tled to the injunctive writ, one must show that there
a fictitious will, deliberately made by agreement of the exists a right to be protected which is directly threatened by
parties, in order to produce, for the purposes of the act sought to be enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a
deception, the appearances of a juridical act which does showing that the invasion of the right is material and
not exist or is different from that which was really substantial, that the right of complainant is clear and
executed. (Mendezona vs. Ozamiz, 376 SCRA 482 unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount
[2002]) necessity for the writ to issue in order to prevent serious
When the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be damage.
Same; Same; Preliminary Injunctions; The applicants
reconveyed, prescription cannot set in. (Santos vs.
for the issuance of writ of injunction must possess clear and
Lumbao, 519 SCRA 408 [2007]) unmistakable legal right that merits protection through the
writ of preliminary injunction.In the Cuasos case, their
o0o right to injunctive relief had not been clearly and
unmistakably demonstrated. They failed to show proof that
there is material and substantial invasion of their right to
warrant the issuance of an injunctive writ. Indeed, the
G.R. No. 160795. June 27, 2008.* enforcement of the writ of execution, which would demolish
CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC., the Cuasos perimeter fence, is manifestly prejudicial to their
petitioner,vs. SPOUSES REYNALDO and MARIA interest. However, they possess no clear and unmistakable
LUISA TANJANGCO, and SPOUSES FRANK and legal right that merits protection through the writ of
TERESITA CUASO, respondents. preliminary injunction. Their right to maintain the said
Provisional Remedies; Injunctions; To be entitled to the fence had been declared inferior to the Tanjangcos right to
injunctive writ, there must be a showing that the invasion of the demolition of the fence, after the CA judgment had
the right is material and substantial, that the right of become final and executory as to the Cuasos.
complainant is clear and unmistakable, and that there is an Appeals; It is a fundamental principle that a party who
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to issue in order does not appeal, or file a petition for certiorari, is not entitled
to prevent serious damage.The denial was based on sound to any affirmative relief; An appellee who is not an appellant
legal principles. It is axiomatic that to be enti- may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to
maintain the judgment, but he cannot seek modification or by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
has also appealed.While it is true that this Court noted the Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum filed by the contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
Cuasos, such notation was made only insofar as Corinthian delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. In
made them respondents in this petition. This Court cannot every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff has to
grant to the Cuasos any affirmative relief as they did not file prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages
a petition questioning the CA ruling. Consequently, the suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the
Decision of the CA holding that the Cuasos acted in bad faith defendant or some other person for whose act he must
and that the perimeter fence may now be demolished cannot respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between
be put in issue by the Cuasos. It is a fundamental principle the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
that a party who does not appeal, or file a petition Same; Same; Negligence; Test to Determine Negligence;
for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative relief. An Words and Phrases; Negligent Act, DefinedA negligent
appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done
brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment, but he from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one which
cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or claim creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another
affirmative relief unless because of the expectable action of the other, a third person,
156 an animal, or a force of nature. A negligent act is one from
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS which an ordinary prudent person in the actors position, in
ANNOTATED the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do
Tanjangco the act or to do it in a more careful manner. The test to
determine the existence of negligence in a particular case
he has also appealed. This applies to C.B. Paraz and
may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in committing
Engr. De Dios who likewise failed to assail the
the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
aforementioned CA Decision.
caution which an ordinary person would have used in the
Torts; Quasi-Delicts; Evidence; Damages; In every tort
same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The
case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has
law, in effect, adopts the standard supplied by the imaginary
to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages
conduct of the discreet paterfamilias in Roman law. The
suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the
existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
defendant or some other person for whose act he must
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the
respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between
situation before him. The law considers what would be
the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.The
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in a man of ordinary
instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed by Article 157
2176 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 2176. Whoever
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 157
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. perimeter wall over the property of the Tanjangcos assured
Tanjangco the Cuasos that everything was in order.
intelligence and prudence, and determines liability Lease; Judicial Notice; The reasonable amount of rent
according to that standard. may not be determined by judicial notice but by supporting
Same; Same; It is not just or equitable to relieve a evidence, such as (1) the realty assessment of the land, (2) the
subdivision association of any liability arising from the increase in realty taxes, and (3) the prevailing rate of rentals
erection of a perimeter fence which encroached upon another in the vicinity.Our ruling inSpouses Badillo v. Tayag, 400
persons lot when, by its very own Manual of Rules and SCRA 494 (2003) is instructive: CitingSia v. Court of
Regulations, it imposes its authority over all its members to Appeals [272 SCRA 141, May 5, 1997], petitioners argue that
the end that no new construction can be started unless the the MTC may take judicial notice of the reasonable rental or
plans are approved by the Association and the appropriate the general price increase of land in order to determine the
cash bond and pre-construction fees are paid.By its amount of rent that may be awarded to them. In that case,
Manual of Rules and Regulations, it is reasonable to assume however, this Court relied on the CAs factual findings, which
that Corinthian, through its representative, in the approval were based on
158
of building plans, and in the conduct of periodic inspections
of on-going construction projects within the subdivision, is 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
responsible in insuring compliance with the approved plans, ANNOTATED
inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls, which in this Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs.
case is the subject of dispute between the Tanjangcos and the Tanjangco
Cuasos. It is not just or equitable to relieve Corinthian of any the evidence presented before the trial court. In
liability when, by its very own rules, it imposes its authority determining reasonable rent, the RTC therein took account
over all its members to the end that no new construction can of the following factors: 1) the realty assessment of the land,
be started unless the plans are approved by the Association 2) the increase in realty taxes, and 3) the prevailing rate of
and the appropriate cash bond and pre-construction fees are rentals in the vicinity. Clearly, the trial court relied, not on
paid. Moreover, Corinthian can impose sanctions for mere judicial notice, but on the evidence presented before it.
violating these rules. Thus, the proposition that the Indeed, courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for the
inspection is merely a table inspection and, therefore, use and occupation of a disputed property. However,
should exempt Corinthian from liability, is unacceptable. petitioners herein erred in assuming that courts, in
After all, if the supposed inspection is merely a table determining the amount of rent, could simply rely on their
inspection and the approval granted to every member is a own appreciation of land values without considering any
mere formality, then the purpose of the rules would be evidence. As we have said earlier, a court may fix the
defeated. Compliance therewith would not be mandatory, reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action on
and sanctions imposed for violations could be disregarded. the evidence adduced by the parties. In Herrera v.
Corinthians imprimatur on the construction of the Cuasos Bollos[G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002], the trial court
awarded rent to the defendants in a forcible entry case. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, dated
Reversing the RTC, this Court declared that the reasonable March 30, 1993.
amount of rent could be determined not by mere judicial The Antecedents:
notice, but by supporting evidence: x x x A court cannot take Respondents-spouses Reynaldo and Maria Luisa
judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court
Tanjangco (the Tanjangcos) own Lots 68 and 69 covered
may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or
by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 2422454 and
which are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought
to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. 2829615respectively, located at Corinthian Gardens
Before taking such judicial notice, the court must allow the Subdivision, Quezon City, which is managed by
parties to be heard thereon. Hence, there can be no judicial petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc.
notice on the rental value of the premises in question without (Corinthian). On the other hand, respondents-spouses
supporting evidence. Frank and Teresita Cuaso (the Cuasos) own Lot 65
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the which is adjacent to the Tanjangcos lots.
Court of Appeals. Before the Cuasos constructed their house on Lot 65,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. a relocation survey was necessary. As Geodetic
Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Offices for Engineer Democrito De Dios (Engr. De Dios), operating
petitioner. under the business name D.M. De Dios Realty and
Feria, Feria, LaO, Tantoco for respondents Sps. Surveying, conducted all the previous surveys for the
Reynaldo and Maria Luisa Tanjangco. subdivisions developer, Corinthian referred Engr. De
Ponce Enrile, Reyes & Manalastas for respondents Dios to the Cuasos. Before, during and after the
Sps. Frank and Teresita Cuaso. construction of the said house, Corinthian conducted
NACHURA, J.: periodic ocular inspections in order to determine
Before this Court is a Petition for Review compliance with the approved plans pursuant to the
on Certiorari1 Manual of Rules and Regulations of
_______________ Corinthian.6Unfortunately, after the Cuasos
constructed their house employing the services of C.B.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-53.
159 Paraz & Construction Co., Inc. (C.B. Paraz) as builder,
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 159 their perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos Lot
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco 69 by 87 square meters.
_______________
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking
the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) 2 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (now retired),
Decision2 dated January 31, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria (now retired) and Danilo
B. Pine (now retired), concurring; id., at pp. 56-108.
43217, which reversed and set aside the Decision3 of the
3 Particularly docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-2706; id., at pp. 172- by 87 square meters. It, however, ruled that the Cuasos
199.
4 Rollo, pp. 148-149.
were builders in good faith, and gave the Tanjangcos the
5 Id., at p. 150. option to sell and the Cuasos the option to buy the
6 Id., at pp. 119-139. encroaching portion of the land, at a price to be agreed
160 upon by the parties within sixty (60) days from receipt
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of the said Decision. In the event that the Cuasos were
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco unable and unwilling to purchase the said portion, the
No amicable settlement was reached between the perimeter wall should be demolished at the latters
parties. Thus, the Tanjangcos demanded that the expense. The RTC also ordered the Cuasos to pay
Cuasos demolish the perimeter fence but the latter monthly rentals ofP2,000.00 commencing from the time
failed and refused, prompting the Tanjangcos to file of the filing of the complaint. The RTC likewise held
with the RTC a suit against the Cuasos for Recovery of that C.B. Paraz was grossly
Possession with Damages.7 _______________
Eventually, the Cuasos filed a Third-Party
7 Id., at pp. 143-147.
Complaint8against Corinthian, C.B. Paraz and Engr. De 8 Id., at pp. 153-164.
Dios. The Cuasos ascribed negligence to C.B. Paraz for 161
its failure to ascertain the proper specifications of their VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 161
house, and to Engr. De Dios for his failure to undertake Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco
an accurate relocation survey, thereby, exposing them negligent in not taking into account the correct
to litigation. The Cuasos also faulted Corinthian for boundaries of Cuasos lot when it constructed the house.
approving their relocation survey and building plans It, thus, ordered C.B. Paraz to pay moral and exemplary
without verifying their accuracy and in making damages as well as attorneys fees to the Tanjangcos
representations as to Engr. De Dios integrity and and the Cuasos. The third-party complaint against
competence. The Cuasos alleged that had Corinthian Corinthian and Engr. De Dios, on the other hand, was
exercised diligence in performing its duty, they would dismissed for lack of cause of action.
not have been involved in a boundary dispute with the The Tanjangcos filed a Motion for Reconsideration9 of
Tanjangcos. Thus, the Cuasos opined that Corinthian the said RTC Decision which the RTC, however, denied
should also be held answerable for any damages that in its Order10 dated June 28, 1993.
they might incur as a result of such construction. Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, the Tanjangcos,
On March 30, 1993, the RTC rendered a Decision in the Cuasos, and C.B. Paraz all appealed to the CA.
favor of the Tanjangcos. It ruled that the Cuasos On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC
perimeter wall encroached on the land of the Tanjangos Decision. It held that the Cuasos acted in bad faith in
land-grabbing the 87 square meter-portion of Lot 69 as Only Corinthian filed a Motion for
of April 5, 1989. Correlatively, the CA allowed the Reconsideration11 of the CA Decision within the 15-day
Tanjangcos to exercise the rights granted under Articles reglementary period. No motion for reconsideration was
449, 450, 451 and 549 of the New Civil Code, which filed by the Cuasos, C.B. Paraz and/or Engr. De Dios.
include the right to demand the demolition of the About six (6) months later, or on August 12, 2003, the
offending perimeter wall after reimbursing the Cuasos Cuasos filed a Comment/Manifestation12 praying that
the necessary expenses for the preservation of the they be allowed to adopt Corinthians Motion for
encroached area. The Cuasos were ordered to pay Reconsideration.
monthly rentals of P10,000.00 for the use, enjoyment In its Resolution13 dated November 14, 2003, the CA
and occupancy of the lot from 1989 up to the time they denied Corinthians Motion for Reconsideration.
vacate the property considering the location and Hence, Corinthian filed the instant Petition for
category of the same. They were, likewise, ordered to Review onCertiorari assailing the CA Decision and
pay the TanjangcosP100,000.00, as moral Resolution, and impleading the Cuasos as one of the
damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, respondents being the third-party plaintiffs in the RTC.
and P150,000.00 as attorneys fees. The CA also This Court gave due course to Corinthians petition
imposed six percent (6%) interest per annum on all the and required the parties to submit their respective
awards. The Cuasos appeal against the Tanjangcos, on memorandum.14In compliance, the Cuasos submitted
the other hand, was dismissed for lack of merit. On the their Memorandum15and Supplement to
third-party complaints, Corinthian, C.B. Paraz and Memorandum,16 which were both noted by this Court in
Engr. De Dios were all found negligent in performing its Resolutions dated January 10, 200517 and February
their respective duties and so they were ordered to 2, 2005,18 respectively.
contribute five percent (5%) each, or a total of fifteen In the meantime, the Tanjangcos moved for partial
percent (15%) to all judgment sums and amounts that entry of judgment of the CA Decision which was granted
the Cuasos by the CA in its Resolution19 dated May 26, 2006,
_______________ directing the issuance of
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 200-207.
10 Id., at p. 208. 11 Id., at pp. 209-216.
162 12 Id., at pp. 225-227.
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 13 Id., at pp. 110-115.
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco 14 Resolution dated September 15, 2004; id., at p. 308.
15 Rollo, pp. 310-325.
shall eventually pay under the decision, also with 16 Id., at pp. 419-433.
interest of six percent (6%) per annum. 17 Id., at p. 450.
18 Id., at p. 452. so. Such determination, according to the Cuasos, will in
19 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao (now retired),
with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Mariflor
turn determine whether or not they were in good faith
Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; id., at pp. 457-460. in constructing the house.24
163 The Tanjangcos opposed the Cuasos application for
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 163 TRO. They countered that the only pending matter with
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco this Court is the appeal by Corinthian; hence, the
an Entry of Judgment and a Certification that its implementation of the January 31, 2003 Decision of the
Decision dated January 31 2003 has become final and CA against the Cuasos will
executory with respect to the Cuasos, C.B. Paraz and _______________

Engr. De Dios for their failure to file an appeal assailing 20 Motion for Execution dated July 10, 2006; id., at pp. 493-501.
the said Decision before this Court. 21 Rollo, pp. 509-511.
The Tanjangcos then moved for the execution of the 22 Id., at pp. 502-508.
23 Id., at pp. 517-529.
judgment against the Cuasos, specifically the
24 Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
demolition of the perimeter fence,20 which was also Preliminary Injunction dated May 4, 2007; id., at pp. 465-491.
granted by the RTC in its Order21 dated December 18, 164
2006. 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Other than the filing of an Opposition22 and a Motion Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco
for Reconsideration23 before the RTC, the Cuasos prayed not preempt the outcome of the said pending incidents.
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) Also, any action taken by this Court on Corinthians
and/or preliminary injunction before this Court to petition would not benefit the Cuasos for they did not
enjoin the demolition of the perimeter fence. They appeal the adverse decision against them. Accordingly,
averred that the premature demolition of the alleged they cannot obtain affirmative relief from this Court by
encroaching perimeter wall and other improvements reason or on account of the appeal taken by Corinthian.
will cause grave and irreparable damage to them, The appeal, they added, is personal to Corinthian.
because what is sought to be demolished is part of their Finally, they argued that the Cuasos are now estopped
residence. They claimed that no amount of money will from questioning the enforcement of the CA Decision
compensate for the damage they stand to suffer should since they issued a managers check to pay the money
any demolition subsequently prove to be wrongful. They judgment.25
argued that before any execution can be carried out, it In this Courts Resolution dated July 18, 2007, we
is necessary to first determine whether or not denied the Cuasos application for TRO and/or writ of
Corinthian was negligent in approving the building preliminary injunction for lack of merit.
plan and whether or not it acted in good faith in doing
The denial was based on sound legal principles. It is It bears stressing that the Cuasos failed to appeal the
axiomatic that to be entitled to the injunctive writ, one ruling of the CA. This failure to contest the CA decision
must show that there exists a right to be protected before this Court was fatal to their cause. It had the
which is directly threatened by the act sought to be effect of an admission that they indeed acted in bad
enjoined. Furthermore, there must be a showing that faith, as they accepted the CA ruling. The decision of
the invasion of the right is material and substantial, the CA, therefore, became binding and final as to
that the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable, them.28 As a matter of fact, the CA already issued a
and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity for partial entry of judgment against the Cuasos.
the writ to issue in order to prevent serious damage.26 An injunction to stay a final and executory decision
In the Cuasos case, their right to injunctive relief is unavailing except only after a showing that facts and
had not been clearly and unmistakably demonstrated. circumstances exist which would render execution
They failed to show proof that there is material and unjust or inequitable, or that a change in the situation
substantial invasion of their right to warrant the of the parties occurred. Here, no such exception exists
issuance of an injunctive writ. Indeed, the enforcement as shown by the facts earlier narrated.29
of the writ of execution, which would demolish the _______________
Cuasos perimeter fence, is manifestly prejudicial to
27 Philippine School of Business Administration-Quezon City v.
their interest. However, they possess no clear and Tolentino-Genilo, G.R. No. 159277, December 21, 2004, 447 SCRA 442,
unmistakable legal right that merits protection through 448.
the writ 28 In Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals,
_______________ 368 Phil. 36, 50; 308 SCRA 559, 573 (1999), citing Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Tempongko, 27 SCRA 418, 424
25 Opposition dated May 17, 2007; id., at pp. 556-574. (1969) andSingapore Airlines Limited v. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA
26 Almeida v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159124, January 17, 2005, 143, 148 (1995), this Court held: The decision of the trial court as
448 SCRA 681, 694. affirmed by the Court of Appeals not having been appealed by the
165 insurer (MIGC) of the Toyota Tamaraw, the same is now final as far
as that entity is concerned, and may not be modified by this Court.
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 165 Failure of any parties to appeal the judgment as against him makes
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco such judgment final and executory. By the same token, an appeal by
of preliminary injunction.27 Their right to maintain the one party from such judgment does not inure to the benefit of the other
party who had not appealed nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of
said fence had been declared inferior to the Tanjangcos such other party from the judgment against him.
right to the demolition of the fence, after the CA 29 Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power and
judgment had become final and executory as to the Light Co., Inc., 431 Phil. 324, 333; 381 SCRA 582, 590 (2002).
Cuasos. 166
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco _______________
While it is true that this Court noted the
Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum filed by 30 Alauya, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 443 Phil.
the Cuasos, such notation was made only insofar as 893, 907; 395 SCRA 742, 752-753 (2003).
Corinthian made them respondents in this petition. 31 Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of
This Court cannot grant to the Cuasos any affirmative Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 976; 329 SCRA 314, 334 (2000).
relief as they did not file a petition questioning the CA 32 Corinthians Memorandum dated December 6,
ruling. Consequently, the Decision of the CA holding 2004,Rollo, pp. 384-385.
167
that the Cuasos acted in bad faith and that the
perimeter fence may now be demolished cannot be put
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 167
in issue by the Cuasos. It is a fundamental principle Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco
that a party who does not appeal, or file a petition Corinthian claims that the approval of the building
for certiorari, is not entitled to any affirmative plan of the Cuasos was not tainted with negligence as it
relief.30 An appellee who is not an appellant may assign did not approve the survey relocation plan but merely
errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the the architectural, structural and sanitary plans for
judgment, but he cannot seek modification or reversal Cuasos house; that the purpose of the said approval is
of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he has not to ensure that the house to be erected on a
also appealed.31 This applies to C.B. Paraz and Engr. De particular lot is constructed within its boundaries but
Dios who likewise failed to assail the aforementioned only to ensure compliance with the Manual of Rules and
CA Decision. Regulations; that while Corinthian conducts actual site
With this matter put to rest, we now go to the main inspections, the inspection and approval of the building
issues raised by Corinthian, the sole petitioner in this plans are limited to table inspection only; that the
case, to wit: survey relocation plan was never submitted for
a) Whether or not there is legal basis for the Court of Corinthians approval; that the acceptance of the
Appeals to hold petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, builders bond did not make Corinthian automatically
Inc. liable to pay 5% of the judgment money to Sps. liable for the encroachment and for damages; and that
Tanjangco on account of the encroachment made by Sps. Corinthian approved the building plan with the good
Cuaso[; and] faith and due diligence required under the
b) Whether or not the Court of Appeals has legal basis circumstances. It, thus, concludes that it cannot be held
to increase unilaterally and without proof the amount prayed liable to pay five percent (5%) of the money judgment to
for in the Complaint, i.e., P2,000.00, as reasonable
the Tanjangcos on account of the encroachment made
compensation for the use and enjoyment of the portion of the
by the Cuasos. Likewise, it finds no legal basis for the
lot encroached upon, toP10,000.00.32
CA to unilaterally increase the amount of the adjudged The Tanjangcos pray that this Court sustain the ruling
rent fromP2,000.00 to P10,000.00 which was not prayed of the CA.34
for by the Tanjangcos in their complaint and in the The instant case is obviously one for tort, as governed
absence of evidence adduced by the parties.33 by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides:
On the other hand, the Tanjangcos stand by the ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
ruling of the CA and opine that Corinthian was to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
negligent in approving the building plan of the Cuasos. for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
They submit that Corinthians claim that it merely pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
conducts table inspections of buildings further
Chapter.
bolsters their argument that Corinthian was negligent
In every tort case filed under this provision, plaintiff
in conveniently and unilaterally restricting and
has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the
limiting the coverage of its approval, contrary to its own
damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or
Manual of Rules and Regulations; that the acceptance
negligence of the defendant or some other person for
of a builders bond does not automatically make
whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of
Corinthian liable but the same affirms the fact that a
cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the
homeowner can hold it liable for the consequences of the
damages incurred.35
approval of a building plan;
_______________ Undeniably, the perimeter fence of the Cuasos
encroached on Lot 69 owned by the Tanjangcos by 87
33 Id., at pp. 363-407. square meters as duly found by both the RTC and the
168 CA in accordance with the evidence on record. As a
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED result, the Tanjangcos suffered damage in having been
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco deprived of the use of that portion of their lot
and that Corinthian, by regularly demanding and encroached upon. Thus, the primordial issue to be
accepting membership dues, must be wary of its resolved in this case is whether Corinthian was
responsibility to protect the rights and interests of its negligent
members. Lastly, the Tanjangcos contend that a court _______________
can take judicial notice of the general increase in the
34 Tanjangcos Memorandum dated November 29, 2004; id., at pp.
rentals of real estate, as in this case, where the CA 331-361.
considered the value of their lot in the posh-and- 35 Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920,
swank Corinthian Gardens Subdivision and the fact November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236, 242.
that they were deprived of it for almost two decades. 169
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 169
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco because the CAs factual findings differ from those of
under the circumstances and, if so, whether such the RTCs.39Thus,
negligence contributed to the injury suffered by the _______________
Tanjangcos. 36 Capili v. Cardaa, G.R. No. 157906, November 2, 2006, 506
A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be SCRA 569, 575, citing 65 C.J.S. 1(14), p. 462.
merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence 37 Fernando v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92087, May 8, 1992, 208
and may be one which creates a situation involving an SCRA 714, 718, citing Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809, 813 (1918).
38 Pestao v. Sumayang, 400 Phil. 740, 749; 346 SCRA 870, 878
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable (2000).
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force 39 Manila Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 338, 354;
of nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary 361 SCRA 35, 49-50 (2001).
prudent person in the actors position, in the same or 170
similar circumstances, would foresee such an 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco
to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.36 after a meticulous review of the evidence on record, we
The test to determine the existence of negligence in hold that the CA committed no reversible error when it
a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the deviated from the findings of fact of the RTC. The CAs
defendant in committing the alleged negligent act use findings and conclusions are substantiated by the
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary evidence on record and are more in accord with law and
person would have used in the same situation? If not, reason. Indeed, it is clear that Corinthian failed to
then he is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts exercise the requisite diligence in insuring that the
the standard supplied by the imaginary conduct of the Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and Regulations,
discreet paterfamilias in Roman law. The existence of thereby resulting in the encroachment on the
negligence in a given case is not determined by Tanjangcos property.
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the We agree with the CA when it aptly held:
situation before him. The law considers what would be Corinthian cannot and should not be allowed to justify or
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in a man of excuse its negligence by claiming that its approval of the
Cuasos building plans was only limited to a so-called table
ordinary intelligence and prudence, and determines
inspection; and not actual site measurement. To accept
liability according to that standard.37
some such postulate is to put a premium on negligence.
By this test, we find Corinthian negligent. Corinthian was not organized solely for the defendants
While the issue of Corinthians alleged negligence is Cuasos. It is also the subdivision of the plaintiffs-spouses
factual in character,38 a review by this Court is proper Tanjangcosand of all others who have their dwelling units
or abodes therein. Pertinently, its Manual of Rules and
Regulations stipulates in Section 3 thereof (under the Surely, Corinthian does not imply that while it may take the
heading Construction), thus: benefits from the Builders cash bond, it may, Pilate-like,
A. Rules and Regulations wash its hands of any responsibility or liability that would or
No new construction can be started unless the might arise from the construction or building of the structure
building plans are approved by the for which the cash bond was in the first place posted. That is
Association and the appropriate Builders cash bond not only unjust and immoral, but downright unchristian and
and pre-construction fees are paid. The Association iniquitous.
will not allow the entry of construction materials and Under the same parity of reasoning, the payment by the
process identification cards for workers if the above appellants-Cuasos to the appellee Corinthian of pre-
conditions are not complied with. Likewise, all construction and membership fees in the Association must
renovations, repairs, additions and improvements to a necessarily entail the creation of certain obligations on the
finished house except electrical wiring, will have to be part of Corinthian. For duties and responsibilities always go
approved by the Association. Water service connection hand in hand with rights and privileges. That is the law of
of a homeowner who undertakes construction work life and that is the law of every civilized society. It is an
without prior approval of the Association will be cut-off axiom of equity that he who receives the benefits must share
in addition to the sanctions previously mentioned. the burdens.40
It goes without saying that this Manual of Rules and By its Manual of Rules and Regulations, it is
Regulations applies to allor it does not apply at all. To reasonable to assume that Corinthian, through its
borrow a popular expression, what is sauce for the gander is representative, in the approval of building plans, and in
sauce for the gooseor ought to be. To put it matter-of-factly the conduct of periodic inspections of on-going
and bluntly, thus, its so-called table inspection approval of
construction projects within the subdivision, is
the Cuasos building plans is no less of
171 responsible in insuring compliance with the approved
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 171 plans, inclusive of the construction of perimeter walls,
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco which in this case is the subject of dispute between the
an approval, as approvals come and go. And since it is an
Tanjangcos and the Cuasos.41 It is not just or equitable
approval tainted with negligence, the necessary and to relieve
_______________
inevitable consequences which law and justice attach to such
negligence must, as a matter of law and justice, also 40 Rollo, pp. 104-105 (Citations omitted).
necessarily attach to Corinthian. 41 Art. IV, Section 3(d) of Corinthians Manual of Rules and
And then again third party defendant-appellee Regulations provides:
Corinthian Garden required the posting of a builders cash All on-going construction shall be subject to inspection of the
bond (Exh. 5-Corinthian) from the defendants-appellants Associations representative for the purpose of determining compliance
Cuasos and the third-party defendant C.B. Paraz to the approved plans. It shall be considered a violation if the
contractor/lot owner does not permit entry of the Association repre-
Construction to secure the performance of their undertaking.
172 notice of the reasonable rental or the general price increase
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of land in order to de-
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco _______________

Corinthian of any liability when, by its very own rules, sentative doing inspection works. Such violation will be subject to the
it imposes its authority over all its members to the end sanctions available to the Association such as (a) denial of entry of
that no new construction can be started unless the construction materials (b) renovation of IDs of construction workers and
(c) cutting-off of water service. The schedule of inspection shall be as
plans are approved by the Association and the follows:
appropriate cash bond and pre-construction fees are
paid. Moreover, Corinthian can impose sanctions for A. For original construction
xxx
violating these rules. Thus, the proposition that the 2. When the perimeter walls are being constructed.
inspection is merely a table inspection and, therefore, xxx
should exempt Corinthian from liability, is 42 448 Phil. 606, 623; 400 SCRA 494, 507-508 (2003).
173
unacceptable. After all, if the supposed inspection is
merely a table inspection and the approval granted to
VOL. 556, JUNE 27, 2008 173
every member is a mere formality, then the purpose of Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco
the rules would be defeated. Compliance therewith termine the amount of rent that may be awarded to them. In
that case, however, this Court relied on the CAs factual
would not be mandatory, and sanctions imposed for
findings, which were based on the evidence presented before
violations could be disregarded. the trial court. In determining reasonable rent, the RTC
Corinthians imprimatur on the construction of the therein took account of the following factors: 1) the realty
Cuasos perimeter wall over the property of the assessment of the land, 2) the increase in realty taxes, and
Tanjangcos assured the Cuasos that everything was in 3) the prevailing rate of rentals in the vicinity. Clearly, the
order. trial court relied, not on mere judicial notice, but on the
In sum, Corinthians failure to prevent the evidence presented before it.
encroachment of the Cuasos perimeter wall into Indeed, courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for
Tanjangcos propertydespite the inspection the use and occupation of a disputed property. However,
conductedconstitutes negligence and, at the very petitioners herein erred in assuming that courts, in
least, contributed to the injury suffered by the determining the amount of rent, could simply rely on their
own appreciation of land values without considering any
Tanjangcos.
evidence. As we have said earlier, a court may fix the
On the second issue, our ruling in Spouses Badillo v. reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action on
Tayag42 is instructive: the evidence adduced by the parties.
Citing Sia v. Court of Appeals [272 SCRA 141, May 5, In Herrera v. Bollos [G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002,
1997], petitioners argue that the MTC may take judicial 374 SCRA 107], the trial court awarded rent to the
defendants in a forcible entry case. Reversing the RTC, this Similarly, in the instant case, the Tanjangcos were
Court declared that the reasonable amount of rent could be deprived of possession and use of their property for
determined not by mere judicial notice, but by supporting more than two decades through no fault of their own.
evidence: Thus, we find no cogent reason to disturb the monthly
x x x A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual
rental fixed by the CA.
matter in controversy. The court may take judicial
All told, the CA committed no reversible error.
notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs
Before taking such judicial notice, the court must against petitioner.
allow the parties to be heard thereon. Hence, there SO ORDERED.
can be no judicial notice on the rental value of the Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez,
premises in question without supporting evidence. Chico-Nazario and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Truly, mere judicial notice is inadequate, because Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
evidence is required for a court to determine the proper Notes.It is a basic procedural postulate that a
rental value. But contrary to Corinthians arguments, preliminary injunction, which necessarily includes a
both the RTC and the CA found that indeed rent was temporary restraining order, should not be used to
due the Tanjangcos because they were deprived of transfer the possession or control of a thing to a party
possession and use of their property. This uniform who did not have such possession or control at the
factual finding of the RTC and the CA was based on the inception of the case. (Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 329
evidence presented below. Moreover, in Spouses SCRA 392 [2000])
Catungal v. Hao,43 we considered the increase in the A writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued
award of upon showing of an actual existing right to be protected
_______________ during the pendency of the principal action. (Lim vs.
43 407 Phil. 309, 323; 355 SCRA 29, 42 (2001).
Court of Appeals, 482 SCRA 326 [2006])
174
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED o0o
Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights
rentals as reasonable given the particular reserved.
circumstances of each case. We noted therein that the
respondent denied the petitioners the benefits,
including rightful possession, of their property for
almost a decade.