Encroachment Dispute: Proportionality and Refusal of Demolition

A property owner sued a neighboring landowner, claiming that a construction project encroached upon their property by extending two centimeters beyond the legally recognized boundary line, and sought the removal of the encroaching structure and damages. The lower court found that the encroachment was minimal, permanent, and did not cause substantial prejudice to the property owner, thus refusing to order demolition and awarding only nominal damages. The highest court upheld the lower court's decision, reasoning that while the encroachment constituted a property right violation, the court has the discretionary power, in the interest of proportionality and to prevent abuse of right, to refuse the remedy of demolition when the encroachment is trivial and the imposition of such a severe sanction disproportionate to the harm suffered.