FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201027. June 27, 2018.]
ERNESTO A. SANCHO/E.A. SANCHO CONSTRUCTION, petitioner,vs. HEIRS OF VINCENT C. AGUJA NAMELY, MAGDALENA G. AGUJA, ARNEL G. AGUJA, LEO G. AGUJA, NOLITO G. AGUJA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARIO G. AGUJA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 27, 2018which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 201027 (Ernesto A. Sancho/E.A. Sancho Construction vs. Heirs of Vincent C. Aguja namely, Magdalena G. Aguja, Arnel G. Aguja, Leo G. Aguja, Nolito G. Aguja, represented by their attorney-in-fact Mario G. Aguja).
For Our review is the Decision 1 dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution 2 dated February 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94878.
The instant petition 3 is rooted from a complaint for "reconveyance of property, quieting of title, and damages" filed by the heirs of Vincent Aguja (respondents) against Ernesto Sancho/E.A. Sancho Construction (petitioner). 4
Respondents are co-owners of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Beguito Nuevo, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner, on the other hand, has been in the construction business for more than 30 years, whose basic services are rental of construction equipment and construction of roads and bridges. 5
The Antecedent Facts
Sometime in 2003, petitioner conducted excavation and quarrying operations in an adjacent land owned by petitioner's brother, Edgar Sancho. The earth-fill materials gathered from the said earth-moving activities were brought to Santuario de San Juan Memorial Park, a cemetery owned by petitioner's sister, Jocelyn Sancho. Such operations encroached upon respondents' property, which resulted to the excavation of about an 876-square-meter portion thereof with a 12-meter depth. This put respondents' property at risk of eroding. Respondents also discovered that there was no permit or Environmental Compliance Certificate obtained for the said earth-moving activities upon inquiry from the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Environmental Management Bureau. 6 CAIHTE
In an attempt to settle the controversy, a relocation survey was conducted, wherein both parties' respective engineers were present. It was found out that there was indeed an encroachment as shown and indicated in the blue print of the survey plan. Despite this, as well as a conference before the barangay, the parties failed to reach a settlement. 7 Hence, the complaint.
Ultimately, respondents demanded payment of damages, including, among others, the value of the excavated portion of their property, moral damages, and attorney's fees. 8
Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that respondents have no cause of action against him. Specifically, petitioner pointed out that it is his brother who owns the land under excavation and it is his sister who owns the cemetery where the landfill was taken and used. It was his sister who ordered the quarrying and his only participation was to provide the equipment and the manpower to operate the rented equipment for the said operations. As such, it is the petitioner's theory that he is not the real party-in-interest and that his brother and sister should have been impleaded. 9
In a Decision 10 dated December 23, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56, ruled that petitioner is not the proper party who should be held responsible for the encroachment or excavation of respondents' property. The RTC found convincing and credible proof that petitioner's equipment were merely rented by his sister and that the land being excavated adjoining respondents' property is owned by petitioner's brother. Such being the case, according to the RTC, petitioner should not be held liable for any damage incurred by the respondents as a result of the excavation. Thus: DETACa
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the evidences [sic] presented, decision is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] Ernesto Sancho/E.A. Sancho Construction and against [respondents]. The instant case is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 11
On appeal, the CA, in its September 16, 2011 Decision 12 found negligence on the part of the petitioner, which resulted to the encroachment upon respondents' property. The CA noted that petitioner has long years of experience in his line of business but despite that, he utterly failed to make sure that this particular operation did not encroach upon the adjacent property owned by respondents. The CA found liability against petitioner as it was undeniable that his company, his equipment and employees who conducted the earth-moving operations caused the damage to respondents' property. In fine, the CA ruled that respondents had a cause of action against the petitioner. However, respondents' claim of P210,240.00 as actual damages was not awarded for lack of sufficient evidence as to the actual amount thereof, as the same was merely based on a breakdown of Claim for Reimbursement/Compensation. The CA also found no basis to award moral, consequential, and exemplary damages claimed by the respondents. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 23 December 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 56, Libmanan, Camarines Sur in Civil Case No. L-1018 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. [Petitioner] is hereby ordered to pay [respondents] the amounts of P100,000.00 as temperate damages, and P30,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against [petitioner].
SO ORDERED.13
Hence, this petition. 14
Basically, petitioner argues that respondents have no cause of action against him. Petitioner ratiocinated in this wise: Reconveyance is a remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to reconvey the land to him. In reconveyance, thus, ownership is the issue. On the other hand, quieting of title is a remedy available only when there is a cloud of doubt on the title of the real property or any interest therein. As it was established that he is not the owner of the adjacent property being excavated, as well as the cemetery where the landfill taken were transferred and used, there is clearly no issue of ownership between the petitioner and the respondents in this case. aDSIHc
As such, petitioner maintains that he is not the proper party to be sued as he can neither reconvey the alleged encroached land nor remove the cloud of doubt to respondents' title. Accordingly, any decision that may be rendered against him would be futile for the decision cannot be enforced or executed as he is not the proper party. Petitioner points out that his brother and sister are the indispensable parties in this case. Thus, while petitioner admits that the CA was correct in finding that respondents have a cause of action for reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages, the CA erred in directing such cause of action against him and not against the indispensable parties.
We resolve.
The Court's Ruling
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. The elements of a cause of action are: (a) the legal right of the plaintiff; (b) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and (c) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right. 15 A cause of action is sufficient if a valid judgment may be rendered thereon if the alleged facts were admitted or proved. 16
In this case, respondents' legal right over the subject property as the owners thereof is not disputed. Undoubtedly, there was a correlative obligation on the part of the petitioner, who was engaged in the earth-moving activities in the land adjacent to respondents' property, to respect the boundaries of the subject lands, as well as respondents' ownership over their property. It was also established that there was an encroachment upon respondents' property. Likewise, there is no question that it was the petitioner — his company, equipment, and employees — who conducted the earth-moving activities on the land adjacent to respondents' property, which caused the encroachment. Clearly, as aptly stated by the CA in its assailed Decision, petitioner negligently went beyond the boundaries of his brother's property and encroached upon respondents' property during his quarrying operations. The CA correctly found that:
In the instant case, [petitioner] is negligent. He claims that he is a reputable businessman who owns E.A. Construction; and that as a General Contractor for 30 years, he has dealt with the government and private sector. He also testified that his employees were the ones who actually operated his equipment consisting of a bulldozer, loader and dump truck, when they conducted the earth-moving or digging of land which was subsequently transported to the cemetery. Despite the long years of experience in his line of business, he utterly failed to make sure that his operation did not encroach upon the adjacent property of [respondents], to the extent of 876 square meters, and did not take precaution to avoid causing damage to the latter's property. Clearly, [petitioner] failed to exercise reasonable care and caution as a businessman of his stature under the circumstances. 17
Contrary thus to petitioner's contention, respondents' cause of action against him for damages cannot be denied.
It is true that reconveyance and/or quieting of title are not the proper remedies in this case, much less against the petitioner. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, there is no ownership issue or controversy on the title of the subject property. Neither is there any boundary dispute in this case, which will call for the determination thereof. Otherwise, an action for reconveyance and/or quieting of title would be the proper remedies, which will definitely necessitate that the registered owner of the adjacent land be impleaded as said actions involve ownership issues. The only issue in the instant case is who should be held liable for the damage caused on respondents' property by the quarrying operations on the land adjacent to it. Hence, ultimately, respondents' claim for the "reconveyance" of the damaged or illegally excavated portion of their land or the payment of the value thereof. Thus, while the case was inaccurately captioned as an action for "reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages," it is in reality an action for damages for an actionable wrong under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, which provides that "whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done." ETHIDa
Notably, there is no allegation, much less proof, that petitioner's brother, who owns the adjacent land, and his sister, who ordered petitioner's company to perform the quarrying operations for the use in the cemetery she owns, have anything to do with the illegal excavation and the damage done to respondents' property. Hence, petitioner's argument that his brother and sister should be impleaded as indispensable parties in this case is misplaced.
Considering the foregoing disquisition, We find no reversible error on the part of the CA in awarding temperate damages in the amount of P100,000.00 for the value of the damaged portion of respondents' property as the actual value of the same was not duly proven.
Likewise, the attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00 awarded to the respondents was proper, as they were compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect their right, the same being just and equitable under the circumstances. 18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated February 22, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94878 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias. Rollo, pp. 32-48.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3.Id. at 4-29.
4.Id. at 6 and 33.
5.Id. at 37.
6.Id. at 6, 33-34, 37-38, 54-55.
7.Id. at 54.
8.Id. at 53.
9.Id. at 55-56.
10. Penned by Judge Lore R. Valencia-Bagalacsa. Id. at 52-57.
11.Id. at 57.
12.Id. at 32-48.
13.Id. at 45.
14.Id. at 4-29.
15.Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., et al., 683 Phil. 415, 425 (2012).
16.Relucio v. Lopez, 424 Phil. 617, 623 (2002).
17.Rollo, p. 44.
18. Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;