ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142266. August 14, 2000]

SONNY ARSENAL, et al. vs. SPS. MARIO AND LEONOR CHANCO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 14 2000.

G.R. No. 142266 (Sonny Arsenal, et al. vs. Spouses Mario Chanco and Leonor Chanco, et al.)

The instant petition stemmed from a complaint for abatement of nuisance filed by the private respondents, Spouses Chanco, against herein petitioner, Sonny Arcenal. The nuisance adverted to was a wall nine (9) meters high built adjacent to the eastern and southern side of the property of the private respondents.

In 1988, petitioner started the construction of his house in Talayan Village, Quezon City and the corresponding fence/wall between the properties of the two parties. Private respondents objected to the high wall averring that it violated the standard restrictions contained in the certificates of titles of the lots situated in their subdivision, Talayan Village; that it violated the ordinances of the Q.C. government as well as the administrative regulations of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and that construction thereof was commenced before the necessary building permits were secured.

Petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that the wall was built as a fire wall; that said wall was structurally sound, its design and the computations relative to its construction, i.e., load of roof beams, weight of the wall, lintel beam, wind load and columns were carefully considered by a qualified and competent structural engineer.

Prior to the filing of the complaint, private respondents had referred the matter to the DPWH who, after hearing and investigation, declared the wall to be structurally unsound. In an Order of the Building Official of Quezon City dated November 23, 1989, petitioner was ordered to reduced the height of the wall to a mere 2.25 meters high from the inside elevation.

On September 28, 1990, private respondents consequently filed the complaint with the Regional Trial Court for abatement of nuisance with a claim for damages and a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. On August 7, 1992, the trial court upheld the findings of the DPWH and ordered the payment of damages in the amount of P30,000.00 and P15,000 as attorney's fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.

Petitioner insists that the subject wall is structurally sound as in fact it was able to withstand many typhoons and the July 16, 1990 earthquake.

After a careful perusal of the petition and the comment filed, we find no reversible error with the decision of the respondent court in affirming the trial court's findings. The trial court had carefully considered the evidence and recommendations of the DPWH which was affirmed on appeal by the Office of the President. We, thus, find no cogent reason to depart from the rule that factual findings of administrative agencies which have acquired expertise in their filed are binding upon this Court. As the trial court held in the instant case: "the DPWH is the proper government entity which is in a better position than the courts to make a technical determination as to the structural soundness of a construction owing to the experience, knowledge and expertise that it has acquired by virtue of its functions."

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the instant petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE