Rana vs. Wong

An alteration to a common subdivision road, done by one homeowner for personal convenience without neighbor consultation, constitutes a private nuisance per accidens. It cannot be summarily abated by aggrieved neighbors; they must seek judicial relief. Where both parties cause mutual damage through bad faith actions, their claims for damages may be offset against each other.

The parties own adjacent lots in Peace Valley Subdivision, Cebu City. The Ranas' property is on higher ground. To facilitate access to their gate, they elevated and cemented a portion of the 10-meter wide subdivision road abutting their property and the Wong-Ong property. They also backfilled soil against the perimeter fence of the adjacent Uy property without installing a retaining wall.

• Filed in RTC (Civil Case Nos. CEB-20893 for Nuisance & CEB-21296 for Recovery of Property).
• RTC dismissed most claims, finding all parties in bad faith, but ordered the Ranas to build a retaining wall for the backfilling.
• Appealed to CA; CA affirmed the RTC.
• Elevated to SC via consolidated petitions for review.

• Parties & Properties: Teresita Lee Wong & Spouses Ong (co-owners), Spouses Uy, and Spouses Rana own adjacent lots. The Rana lot is ~2 meters higher than the Uy lot.
• Road Elevation (1997): The Ranas elevated/cemented half of the 10m-wide subdivision road between their lot and the Wong-Ong lot to level it with their gate.
• Backfilling: The Ranas backfilled soil along their boundary with the Uy property, adding pressure to the Uys' perimeter fence (not designed as a retaining wall).
• RTC Order (Nov. 27, 1997): Granted Wong, et al.'s motion to use heavy equipment to develop their lot and use the subject road as access.
• Demolition (May 1998): Wong, et al. used the order to level the elevated road portion, hampering the Ranas' access and trapping their vehicle.
• Encroachment Claim: The Ranas filed a separate case (CEB-21296) alleging the Uys encroached 11 sq.m. of their land. A court-commissioner survey found a 2-sq.m. encroachment by the Uys.

• The courts erred in applying the in pari delicto doctrine and failing to abate the nuisance, which the Ranas reconstructed.
• The courts erred in not finding the Ranas guilty of bad faith in filing the encroachment suit.

• Procedural Issues: N/A.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the Ranas' elevation of the road portion constitutes a nuisance that could be summarily abated.
  2. Whether the backfilling constitutes a nuisance requiring a retaining wall.
  3. Whether the parties are entitled to damages (moral, exemplary, attorney's fees) for malicious prosecution or bad faith.
  4. Whether the Ranas are entitled to the return of the 2-sq.m. encroached portion.

• Substantive:
  1. Road Elevation: The elevated road is a nuisance per accidens, not a nuisance per se. It cannot be summarily abated. Wong, et al.'s demolition was unwarranted, entitling the Ranas to nominal and temperate damages in theory. However, the Ranas' act of creating the nuisance without consultation also violated the neighbors' rights, entitling the latter to nominal damages. The SC offset these damages.
  2. Backfilling: The backfilling endangered the Uys' fence and safety. The Ranas must build a retaining wall as per the OBO sketch.
  3. Damages: No malice or bad faith sufficient for malicious prosecution was proven. Claims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses are denied for lack of legal and factual basis.
  4. Encroachment: The 2-sq.m. encroachment was proven by the commissioner's survey. The Uys must return this portion to the Ranas. The obligation to build the retaining wall is conditioned on this return.

• Nuisance Per Se vs. Nuisance Per Accidens:
  • Nuisance Per Se: Affects immediate safety and may be summarily abated without judicial intervention.
  • Nuisance Per Accidens: Depends on circumstances and location; its existence is a question of fact requiring a judicial hearing before abatement.
  • Application: The road elevation was not inherently dangerous (nuisance per se) but became a nuisance due to its specific location and effect on neighbors' rights (nuisance per accidens). Thus, summary abatement was illegal.
  • In Pari Delicto Principle: When two parties are equally at fault, the law leaves them as they are and denies recovery. The CA misapplied this doctrine (which concerns void contracts) to a tort/nuisance case. The SC instead used the concept of offsetting mutual liabilities arising from the parties' respective wrongful acts.

• "Since the subject portion is not a nuisance per se (but actually a nuisance per accidens as will be later discussed) it cannot be summarily abated. As such, Wong, et al.'s demolition of Sps. Rana's subject portion, which was not sanctioned under the RTC's November 27, 1997 Order, remains unwarranted."
• "The principle of in pari delicto provides that when two parties are equally at fault, the law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them. However, this principle does not apply with respect to inexistent and void contracts."

• Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. Jac Liner, Inc. — Cited to emphasize the rule that a nuisance not per se requires judicial intervention for abatement.
• Yu Bun Guan v. Ong — Cited (and distinguished) by the CA regarding the in pari delicto principle; the SC found its application erroneous as no void contract was involved.

• Civil Code, Art. 694 — Definition of nuisance.
• Civil Code, Art. 695 — Classification of public/private nuisance.
• Civil Code, Arts. 704, 706 — Rules on summary abatement of public and private nuisances.
• Civil Code, Art. 2221 — Nominal damages to vindicate a right.
• Civil Code, Art. 2224 — Temperate damages for pecuniary loss uncertain in amount.
• Civil Code, Art. 2216 — Assessment of nominal/temperate damages left to court discretion.
• Civil Code, Art. 2217, 2219 — Grounds for moral damages.
• Civil Code, Art. 2229 — Purpose of exemplary damages.
• Civil Code, Art. 2208 — Instances when attorney's fees may be recovered.
• National Building Code (PD 1096), Sec. 1202(c)(2) — Requirement for retaining walls where abrupt ground level changes exist.