G.R. No. 188715 REGALA v. CARIN

REGALA v. CARIN

G.R. No. 188715

April 6, 2011

FACTS: 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.

Carin filed a complaint for damages before the RTC alleging that instead of boring just one hole as agreed upon, petitioner demolished the whole length of the wall and that debris and dust piled up on his property.

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.

Engineer Haduca found an encroachment by petitioner of six centimeters. Hence, RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent.

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

RULING: No. 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 respondents consent, the lack of the permit was inconsequential since it only rendered petitioner liable to administrative sanctions or penalties.

However, Regala cannot steer clear from any liability whatsoever. Carin and his family’s rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property have, at the very least, been inconvenienced from the incident borne of petitioners 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.