There may be damage but without injury if the loss or harm is not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the person who suffered the alleged damage. This is the principle applied in this case of Ana.
The case involved a parcel of land registered and titled in the name of Mila which was leased to Ana for 15 years beginning August 16, 1992 up to August 15, 2007. The lease contract stipulated a monthly rental of P15,000 for the first five years, P20,000 for the next five years and P25,000 for the last five years. It was also agreed that Ana would deposit the amount equivalent to two months rental upon the execution of the contract. The contract further contained an automatic cancellation clause in case of failure to pay the rental or to comply with any of its terms and conditions. The lease was annotated on Mila’s title but possession however was not yet turned over to Ana.
In the meantime, on April 28, 1994, Mila donated the subject lot to Leony resulting in the issuance of a new TCT in Leony’s name but with the annotation of Ana’s lease contract carried over in his title.
On July 20, 1995, possession of the subject property was finally delivered to Ana. But despite delivery, Ana did not pay the stipulated rental deposit and monthly rentals. Thereafter, or on June 3, 1996, a Cancellation of Contract of Lease supposedly signed by both Ana and Leony was annotated on the latter’s title resulting in the cancellation of the existing entry of the lease contract between Ana and Mila. Leony signed it upon suggestion of a mutual friend, Alice who made the impression that she can work out with Ana the signing of said cancellation for a certain consideration.
Subsequently however, Ana joined by her husband Larry sued Leony for moral and exemplary damages claiming that the Cancellation of the Contract of Lease was a forgery and asking for the revival of the previous annotation entered in Leony’s title.
Traversing the suit, Leony argued that Ana and Larry have no cause of action against him because they did not comply with the stipulations in the lease contract by non-payment of the deposit and monthly rentals; thus the lease had already been terminated pursuant to the automatic cancellation clause. Leony further denied the allegation of forgery and insisted that it was Alice who facilitated the signing of said document.
While the RTC found that the Cancellation of the Lease Contract was a forgery, it still dismissed the case filed by Ana and Larry for lack of cause of action because Leony was not the author of the forgery and because they failed to show that they have a right to maintain the annotation of a non-enforceable lease contract on Leony’s title. Was the RTC correct?
Yes. It is clear that at the time of the filing of the action, the lease contract already lost its efficacy. Accordingly there is no basis to save its annotation on Leony’s title. With the automatic cancellation of the lease contract because of non-payment of the two months deposit and the rentals, Ana lost her status as a lessee of the subject property. Perforce no damage or prejudice would be suffered by her and her husband in the cancellation of the encumbrance of the lease contract in Leony’s title.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed him — a concurrence of duty to him and legal responsibility causing it. It is not enough that one suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish or serious anxiety. There must be proof that a wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of such damage.
In this case, Ana and Larry failed to establish any wrongful act on the part of Leony which would warrant the award of damages in their favor. Leony had nothing to do with the forgery. The fact that the document purportedly cancelling the lease was forged is of no moment. There could not have been a violation of a right as a result of such forgery because there was never a right to talk about as far as Ana and Larry are concerned.
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss or harm resulting from the injury. In this case it was within the right of Leony, as lessor, to avail himself of the automatic termination clause so the harm suffered by the spouses was not a result of a violation of a legal duty. Thus whatever damages they may have suffered as a consequence of the termination of the lease contract would have to be borne by them alone (Spouses Labayen vs. Serafica, G.R. 178443, October 6, 2008).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net