G.R.
No. 160708, October 16, 2009
PATROCINIA
RAVINA AND WILFREDO RAVINA VS. MARY ANN P. VILLA ABRILLE, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF INGRID
D’LYN P. VILLA ABRILLE, INGREMARK D’WIGHT
VILLA ABRILLE, INGRESOLL DIELS VILLA ABRILLE AND INGRELYN DYAN VILLA ABRILLE
QUISUMBING, ACTING C.J.:
QUISUMBING, ACTING C.J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Mary Ann Pasaol Villa Abrille and Pedro Villa Abrille are husband and wife. They have four
children, who are also parties to the instant case and are represented by their
mother, Mary Ann.
In 1982, the spouses acquired a
555-square meter parcel of land denominated as Lot 7, located in Davao City,
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-88674 in their names.
Said lot is adjacent to a parcel of land which Pedro acquired when he was still
single and which is registered solely in his name under TCT No. T-26471.
Through their joint efforts and the
proceeds of a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), the
spouses built a house on Lot 7 and Pedro’s lot. The house was finished in the
early 1980’s but the spouses continuously made improvements, including a
poultry house and an annex.
In 1991, Pedro got a mistress and began
to neglect his family. Mary Ann was forced to sell or mortgage their movables
to support the family and the studies of her children. By himself, Pedro
offered to sell the house and the two lots to herein petitioners, Patrocinia
and Wilfredo Ravina.
Mary Ann objected and notified the petitioners of her objections, but Pedro
nonetheless sold the house and the two lots without Mary Ann’s consent, as
evidenced by a Deed of Sale[5]. It appears on the said deed that
Mary Ann did not sign on top of her name.
On July 5, 1991 while Mary Ann was
outside the house and the four children were in school, Pedro together with
armed members of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and acting
in connivance with petitioners[6] began transferring all their
belongings from the house to an apartment.
When Mary Ann and her daughter Ingrid Villa Abrille came home, they were stopped from
entering it. They waited outside the gate until evening under the rain. They
sought help from the Talomo Police Station, but police authorities refused to
intervene, saying that it was a family matter. Mary Ann alleged that the
incident caused stress, tension and anxiety to her children, so much so that
one flunked at school.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners patrocin[i]a ravina and wilfredo ravina are liable for
damages, the same being contrary to law and evidence.[10]
RULING:
The claim is erroneous to say the
least. The manner by which respondent and her children were removed from the
family home deserves our condemnation. While respondent was out and her
children were in school, Pedro Villa
Abrille acting in
connivance with the petitioners[21] surreptitiously transferred all
their personal belongings to another place. The respondents then were not
allowed to enter their rightful home or family abode despite their impassioned
pleas.
Firmly established in our civil law is
the doctrine 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.”[22] When a right is exercised in a
manner that does not conform with such norms and results in damages to another,
a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrong doer must be held
responsible. Similarly, any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
shall compensate the latter for the damages caused. [23] It is
patent in this case that petitioners’ alleged acts fall short of these
established civil law standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment