Joyce Ardiente v. Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa Pastorfide, Cagayan De Oro Water District and Gaspar Gonzales, Jr. GR. NO. 161921, July 17, 2013

"Principle of Abuse of Rights" - Article 19 of the Civil Code

FACTS:

Ma. Theresa Pastorfide entered a MOA with Joyce Ardiente where the latter sold, conveyed, and transferred all their rights and interests in the Emily Homes Housing unit to the former. It has been agreed by the parties that the water bill will remain in the account of Ardiente. On March 12, 1999, Ma. Theresa's water supply was disconnected without notice. She complained to the Cagayan De Oro Water District (COWD) and she found out that the account has become delinquent. She paid the three months due and wrote a letter through her counsel to the COWD to explain why her water supply was cut without notice.

The general manager of the COWD, Gaspar Gonzalez, replied that it was Joyce Ardiente who requested the disconnection of the water supply. A complaint for damages was filed against Ardiente, COWD and Gonzalez by Ma. Theresa. The RTC ruled in favor of Ma. Theresa on the ground that the defendants committed abuse of their rights. The ruling was upheld by the CA on appeal with modification on the award of the amount for damages.Hence this petition before the SC.

ISSUE:

Are the defendants liable for damages?

RULING:

Yes. The court ruled that the principle of abuse of rights under Section 19 of the Civil Code was violated. It provides that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith."  

A right, although it is legal for being recognized by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality (Globe Mackay and Radio Corporation v CA), when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and the same causes damage to another. The person exercising an abuse of right is thus liable for damages caused to another. The herein petitioner is liable for damages by ordering the cutting of the water supply of the respondent without giving notice about such intention. The COWD and Gonzalez are likewise liable for damages by disconnecting the water supply without prior notice and for their subsequent neglect of reconnecting the water supply even when the respondent already paid the delinquent account. 

OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS NOTES ON PRESCRIPTION

OBLIGATION AND CONTRACTS
Prepared by : Evelyn Chua Bergantinos-De Matias

Essential elements in the principle of latches:

(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint for which the complaint seeks a remedy:

(2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit;

(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant or the suit is not held barred.

Source: Narciso & Maria Buenaventura v CA GR 50837 December 28, 1992

Prescription

-          A method of acquiring a non-possessory interest in land through the long, continuous use of the land.

-          the method of acquiring an easement upon another's real property by continued and regular use without permission of the property owner for a period of years required by the law of the state 

Real Property:     

Ordinary prescription                  :  10 years

Extraordinary prescription           :  30 years

Movables / Personal Properties              

Ordinary prescription                  :  8 years

Extraordinary prescription           :  4 years