USES CRISTINO and BRIGIDA CUSTODIO and USES LITO and MARIA CRISTINA SANTOS, vs, [RT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO C. MABASA No. 116100 February 9, 1996 ALADO, J.: Ts: The respondent (Pacifico Mabasa) owns a parcel of land with 3 two-door apartment erected thereon situated at Interior P. Burgos St., Palingon, Tipas, Tagig, Metro Manila. Said property may be described to be surrounded by other immovables pertaining respondents herein [As an access to P. Burgos Street from respondent's property, there are two possible passageways. The first passageway is approximate one meter wide ‘and is about 20 meters disan(t) from Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Street. Such path Is passing jn between the previously mentioned row of houses of the petitioners The second passageway Is about 3 ‘meters In width and length from Mabasa’s residence to P, Burgos Street; itis about 26 meters. In passing thru said passageway, a less than a meter wide path through the septic tark and with 5-6 meters in length, has to be traversed. When said property was purchased by Mabaso, there were tenants occupying the remises and who were acknowledsed by Mabasa as tenants. However, ‘Sometime in February, 1982, one of Said tenants vacated the apartment and when Mabasa went to ‘see the premises, he saw that there had been built {an adobe fence in the first passageway making It arower in wloth, Said adobe fence was frst * with respect tothe fist issue, heroin petitioners are already barred trom raising the same. Pettioners cla hot apped Trem the decision of the cOurt 9 QUO ‘granting private respondents the ight of way, hence they ‘ae presumed to be cated with the ‘ajudkation’ there. wih the finalty” of the Sidoment of the tral court as to petboners, the issue of propriety of the grant of Hight of way has ‘already been ald to rest. + 2 issue: NO + Areading of the decision ofthe CA wil show that the ‘urs oF damages wos based solely on the fact that the oviginal plain, Paciice Mabase, incurred losses in the form of unrealized rentale when the tenants ‘cated the eased premises by reason ofthe cosure lof the passageway However, the mere fact tat the Plointif suffered losses does not give rise to 2 right Forecover damages, ‘+ There isa material distinction between damages ang injury. Injury is the tlegal Invasion ofa legal rights damage isthe loss, nur, or nar which results from the injury, and: damages are the recompanse oF compensation aworded for the damage suffered ‘Thus, there can be damage without Injury In those Ingances in whieh tne lose or harm vas not the result ofa violation of legal duty. (demnum obsave Inuna). Tn order that a plaintff may maineain an ‘ion for the injuries of whkh he complains, he must estabish that such injuries fesuted rom. 2 Breach of duty whien the defendant owad to the Dont a concurrence of injury to the pint and Tega resporsbity by the person causing It (damnum et inurin) constructed by Petitioners Santoses along Property whieh is also along the first passage Petitioner Marato constructed her adobe fence ‘even extended said fence in such a way tha fentire passageway was enclosed. And ic was that the remaining tenants of said apart vacated the area, ‘© Petitionert Ma, Cristina Santos testified that constricted said fence because of some inconveniences of having (at) the front of her 4 pathway such as when some of the tenants drunk and would bang their doors and windows. ‘© Trial court rendered a decision ordering Petioners Custodos and Santoses to Respondent Mabasa permanent access ingress ‘egress, to the public street and Mabasa to par Custodios and Santoses the sum of Eight Thot Pesos (P8,000) as indemnity for the permanen of the passageway. ‘+ Respondent Mabasa went to the CA raising the issue of whether or not the lower court erred it awarding damages in their favor, The CA rene its decsion affirming the judgment of the trial with modification only Insofer as the. grat damages to Mabasa The motion for reconsider fled by the petitioners was denied. ISSUE: WON the grant of right of way to herwin pr respondent Mabasa Is proper. WON the award of damages is In order. * 1" issue: + In the case at bar, athough there was damage, there was no lega injury. The ack af pettioners constouting a fence within ther lot Isa vali sxemise of these oohtas ouners, hence aot conirany Totmarals good customs or puble pale, The fam Tecogrizes_nthe owner the Tig to enjoy and dispose of 2. thing, without other limtatins than those established by low. TE Is within the right of petitioners, 2s owners, to enclose and fence their property. Ardcle 430 of the Clu Code provides that "(e)very owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other Imeane’ without ‘detriment to” servitude ‘constituted thereon." + Atte time of the construction of the fence, the lot Was not subject to aay serviudes. There was no easement of way existing. In favor of private Tespondents, eth by law or by contract. The fact that prvate respondents fad no existing ight over the Said passageway is confirmed. by the very decision ofthe tral court granting @ compulsory right of way in thir favor afar payment of just ‘compensation * Hance, prior to sald decsion, pettioners had an ‘absaute nght over ther property ang thelr act of fencing and encising the same wes an act which they mey lawfully perform in the employment and ‘exercise of sald right. To repeat, whatever injury or ‘damage may have been susiamed. by "pevate Fespondents By reacon ofthe mgmt use of the sa land by pestoners' damnum absque jurisRe: Request of the heirs of the passengers of Dona Paz FACTS: ‘A complaint for damages amounting to 1.5 billion pesos was files in the name and behalf of the relatives or heirs of the sinking of Dona Paz, caused by its collision with another vessel. The action is class suit, prosecuted by the 27 named plaintiffs in their behalf and in representation of about 4,000 Persons who are close relatives and legal heirs of the passengers against the defendants, the Management of Dona Paz. Plaintiff's prayer that judgment be rendered in their favor by ordering defendants to pay jointly and severally (a) P200, 000 to P400, 000 per victim by way of actual or compensatory, or the fo total amount from 800 million to PI, 200 Million; (b) An amount which the honorable court may deem just and reasonable and by way of attomey’s fees and, under the circumstance of this case, P10 million would be reasonable. Now together with the complaint, plaintiffs file a “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE AS PAUPER LITIGANTS”. This motion was granted by Judge Chingcuangco in his capacity as Executive Judge only in so far as the 7 plaintiffs were concerned, It was this order of Judge Chingeuangco dated January 4, 1988 that the plaintiffs requested the Supreme Court to set side, ‘The High Tribunal allowed parties to files their parties to make comments, including the Executive Judge. The defendant maintained that: i) there were only 1, 493 passengers on board at the time of the tragedy; (ii) each claimant is a class unto himself in terms of the legal basis for the claim and the amount of damages recoverable, ii) It is doubtful whether 27 plaints are numerous and representative to fully protect the interest of all iv) there are in truth only 7 plaintiffs qualified to sue as pauper litigants ISSUE: () Whether or not a class suit is a proper? (2) Whether or not the numerous claimants joined as parties plaintiff’ maybe allowed as pauper litigants: RULING (1) No. For the class suit to prosper, the circumstance should be that there is only one right or cause of action pertaining or belonging in common to many persons, not separately or severally distinct individuals. It is needful that the parties be so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the court. The case at bar is not being proper for a class suit, because the action may not be maintained by a representative few in behalf of all the others. (2) No, The Dona Paz tragedy that claimed so many unsuspecting victims in what has been described as the worst single disaster in maritime history which became the aspect of national importance. Yet, it does not under any existing law or rule justify excusing such parties from paying the required judicial fees or costs. There must be a proper showing that every would-be litigant, who seeks exemption trom the payment of the fees, must establish, not simply allege, his lack of means by affidavits, certificate from the corresponding provincial, city or municipal treasurer, or otherwise.GR. No, L-63559, May 30, 1986 NEWSWEEK, INC., petitioner, us. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS INC., BINALBAGAN-ISABELA PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE LA CARLOTA, LA CASTELLANA y PONTEVEDRA, INC., DONEDCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION INC., ARMANDO GUSTILO, ENRIQUE ROJAS, ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, JR., PABLO SOLA, JOSE MONTALVO, VICENTE GUSTILO, JOSEPH MARANON, ROBERTO CUENCA, JOSE SICANGCO, FLORENCIO ALONSO, MIGUEL GATUSLAO, PEDRO YULO, MARINO RUBIN and BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, respondents. FACTS:' * The article "An Island of Fear" was published by Newsweek in its February 23, 1981 issue. It allegedly portrayed the island province of Negros Occidental as aplace dominated by big landowners or sugarcane planters who not only exploited the impoverished workers, but also brutalized and killed them with impunity. * Newsweek filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: ©. the printed article sued upon is not actionable in fact and in law; ©. the complaint is bereft of allegations that state, much less support a cause of action. * Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Complaint on its face states a valid cause of action; and the question as to whether the printed article sued upon its actionable or not is a matter of evidence. * Petitioner: Complaint failed to state a cause of action because:© Complaint made no allegation the article referred specifically to any one of the private respondents; Libel can be committed only against individual reputation; © in cases where libel is claimed to have been directed at a group, there is actionable defamation only if the libel can be said to reach beyond the mere collectivity to do damage to a specific, individual group member's reputation. ISSUE: WON the complaint must be dismissed? YES. RULING: * Corpus vs. Cuademo, Sr: © “in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that he be named (19 ALR. 116)." * Uy Tioco us. Yang Shu Wen: © Defamatory remarks directed at a class or group of persons in general language only, are not actionable by individuals composing the class or group unless the statements are sweeping. The case at bar is not a class suit. It is not a case where one or more may sue for the benefit of al. We have here a case where each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the community. They do not have a common or general interest in the subject matter of the controversy.