Scribd
Upload
26 views1 page

Amonoy Vs Fornida

The case involves Sergio Amonoy challenging a Court of Appeals decision that held him liable for damages to respondents Jose Guitierrez and Angela Fornida due to unauthorized demolition of their property. The Court ruled that while Amonoy's initial actions were justified, continuing the demolition after a restraining order constituted an abuse of right, leading to his liability. Consequently, Amonoy's Petition for Review was denied, affirming the lower court's decision.

Uploaded by

kimberly.gabayno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views1 page

Amonoy Vs Fornida

The case involves Sergio Amonoy challenging a Court of Appeals decision that held him liable for damages to respondents Jose Guitierrez and Angela Fornida due to unauthorized demolition of their property. The Court ruled that while Amonoy's initial actions were justified, continuing the demolition after a restraining order constituted an abuse of right, leading to his liability. Consequently, Amonoy's Petition for Review was denied, affirming the lower court's decision.

Uploaded by

kimberly.gabayno
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G. R. NO.

140420 February 15, 2001


Sergio Amonoy, petitioner,
vs.
Spouses Jose Guitierrez and Angela Fornida, respondents.

Facts:
 The petitioner of this case challenged the CA Decision which rendered judgement against
the petitioner to pay Bruno and Bernadin Gutierrez for actual damages. He also assailed
another decision that denied his Motion for Reconsideration.
 The respondents of this case failed to pay the Attorney’s fee of Amonoy, thus, leading to
the foreclosure of the two lots which were secured by the deed of estate mortgage.
 It followed that in 1985 a Writ of Possession and notice to vacate was made. Then in
1986, orders were issued for the demolition of the structures in the lots including the
house of the respondents.
 In the same year (1986), a petition for temporary restraining order enjoining the
demolitions was granted.
 However, the demolition was already started and that the petitioner carried on with
demolition up until 1987, despite being temporarily restrained to do so.
 With this, the petitioner was held liable for the damages the demolition caused with the
respondent spouses. He then, opposed this ruling and filed for Petition for Review.
Issue:
 Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in deciding that the petitioners were liable to
the respondents for damages. (YES)
Ruling:
 The Court ruled that doctrine exempting the person from the liabilities of damage in
exercising his rights is not appliable to this case.
 It was concluded that the process of starting the demolition before the issuance of
restraining order was legally justified, but the continuance of the activity upon receiving
the order is already an abuse of right.
 Every person can exercise their own right, but not to the extent of prejudicing others. In
exercising one’s right and performing one’s duties, Article 19 have set the standards and
limitations in which such exercise or performance cause harms to others, liabilities will
ensue.
 Thus, the Petition for Review is Denied and the CA decision is Affirmed.

You might also like