Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo vs.

Li Seng Giap and Sons, Inc; Torts

G.R. No. 170596 November 28, 2008

Facts:

Petitioner spouses Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo owned a lot. They decided to construct a 5-storey
concrete building thereon, the NSS Building, and for this project, they contracted the servicesof Contech
Construction Technology Development Corporation (Contech) as their GeneralContractor. Adjacent to
their lot is a semi-concrete building known as the Li Seng Giap Building(LSG Building), owned by Li Seng
Giap & Sons, Inc. (respondent). During the construction of the NSSBuilding, the respondent, through its
general manager, John T. Lee, received complaints from theirtenants about defects in the building.
There were cracks appearing on the floors, the steel door wasbent, and concrete slabs of the walls were
falling apart.An inspection of the premises revealed that the excavation made by Contech on petitioners'
landwas close to the common boundary, exposing the foundation of the LSG Building. As a gesture of
goodwill to their neighbors, the petitioners assured the respondent that repairs would be undertaken by
their contractor. In December 1979, Contech announced that it had completed repairs on the LSG
Building. Notwithstanding this assurance, more defects in the LSG Building appeared, i.e., tilted floors,
cracks in the columns and beams, distorted window frames. Apparently, the LSG Building was
continuously sagging and the respondent felt that it was no longer safe to occupy the building.
Respondents as owner of LSG Building demanded that petitioner should handle the cost of rebuilding
the said building. the latter refused hence a case was filed. It was decided against the petitioner. On
appeal petitioner, pleaded that its liability be tempered since the owner of LSG was also contributorily
negligent.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the liability of petitioner be mitigated due to the contributory negligence of
respondent? YES

2. W/N there was sufficient lateral and subjacent support provided on the adjoining lot when the
excavation was commenced? NO, thus contractor and petitioner are liable still

Held:

1. Yes, during the trial it was found out that the foundation of the LSG building building is the same
as the foundation of the previous building when it was bought from the previous owners. Respondents
only renovated the same and add additional 2 floors. Clearly then, the foundation that is too old cannot
hold a 4 storey building, more so when the adjacent lot was excavated by petitioners. Thus, considering
that respondent's negligence must have necessarily contributed to the sagging of the LSG Building, a
reduction of the award is warranted. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that respondent should
likewise share in the cost of the restructuring of its building
2. The lower courts also found that there was insufficient lateral or subjacent support provided on
the adjoining lot when excavation was done on petitioners' land. While there were wood sheet piles
placed along the sides of the excavation, they were not properly braced to prevent a failure
wedge.24Such failure can only be accounted to the contractor, which is no other than Contech.

Although the trial court stated that petitioner as land owner had every right to excavate on his own
land, such right is not absolute as to deprive the adjacent owner sufficient lateral support pursuant to
Article 684, New Civil Code, which states that:

No proprietor shall make such excavation upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building of
sufficient lateral or subjacent support.