Spouses Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Spouses Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Spouses Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] (Petition) under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court filed by petitioners, Spouses Abraham and Melchora Ermino (Spouses
Ermino) assailing the Decision[2] dated October 9, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 00044. The CA modified the Decision[3] dated December 30, 2003 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC) which found both E.B.
Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. (E.B. Villarosa) and Golden Village Homeowners
Association, Inc. (GVHAI) liable for damages to Spouses Ermino by absolving GVHAI of
any liability.
Spouses Ermino are residents of Alco Homes, a subdivision located beside Golden
Village Subdivision (Golden Village) in Barangay Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City.
On days prior to August 12, 1995 and September 10, 1995, there was continuous
heavy rain which caused a large volume of water to fall from the hilltop subdivision to
the subdivisions below.[4] The volume of water directly hit Spouses Ermino's house and
damaged their fence, furniture, appliances and car.[5]
Spouses Ermino filed a complaint for damages against E.B. Villarosa, the developer of
Hilltop City Subdivision, and GVHAI. The Hilltop City Subdivision is found at the upper
portion of Alco Homes, making it a higher estate, while Golden Village is located beside
Alco Homes, which makes both Alco Homes and Golden Village lower estates vis-a-vis
Hilltop City Subdivision.
Spouses Ermino blamed E.B. Villarosa for negligently failing to observe Department of
Environment and Natural Resources rules and regulations and to provide retaining walls
and other flood control devices which could have prevented the softening of the earth
and consequent inundation.[6] They likewise claimed that GVHAI committed a wrongful
act in constructing the concrete fence which diverted the flow of water to Alco Homes,
hence, making it equally liable to Spouses Ermino.[7]
Spouses Ermino prayed that E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI be made jointly and severally
liable in the amount of P500,000.00 as actual damages, P400,000.00 as moral
damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.[8] They likewise prayed for
attorney's fees and litigation costs and expenses.[9]
E.B. Villarosa argued that the location of the house of Spouses Ermino is located at the
lower portion of the Dagong Creek and is indeed flooded every time there is a heavy
downpour, and that the damage was further aggravated by GVHAI's construction of the
concrete fence.[10] It contended, however, that the damage was due to a fortuitous
event.[11] Meanwhile, GVHAI averred that the construction of the concrete fence was in
the exercise of its proprietary rights and that it was done in order to prevent outsiders
from using the steel grille from entering the subdivision.[12] It likewise asserted that
they "should not be made inutile and lame-duck recipients of whatever waters and/or
garbage" that come from Alco Homes.[13] GVHAI attributed sole liability on E.B.
Villarosa for having denuded Hilltop City Subdivision and for its failure to provide
precautionary measures.
The RTC found E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI jointly and severally liable for the damages to
Spouses Ermino's properties, thus:
(b) Dismissing the cross-claim of defendant E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co.
Limited against Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc. there being no
evidence adduced by said defendant E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co. Limited
and/or Eliezer Villarosa against Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
as it was declared to have waived presenting evidence in its favor;
(e) Denying plaintiff’s prayer for moral and exemplary damages there being
no sufficient evidence offered during trial.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The RTC held that the bulldozing by E.B. Villarosa of the proposed Hilltop City
Subdivision made the soil soft that it could easily be carried by a flow of water and that
if GVHAI did not change the steel grille gate to concrete fence between its subdivision
and Alco Homes, the flow of water would have just passed by.[15] Thus, both E.B.
Villarosa and GVHAI were negligent and liable to Spouses Ermino.
Ruling of the CA
Only GVHAI appealed to the CA. Thus, the trial court's decision attained its finality as
regards E.B. Villarosa.
The CA reversed the RTC's Decision and found no liability on the part of GVHAI. The CA
held that indeed, GVHAI exercised its proprietary rights when it constructed the
concrete fence and that it was also not negligent. The dispositive portion reads:
Issue
Whether the CA erred in ruling that GVHAI was not responsible for the damage to
Spouses Ermino's properties.
Spouses Ermino impleaded GVHAI in their complaint for damages on the ground that
the latter committed a wrongful act in replacing its steel grille gate with a concrete
fence.[17] Spouses Ermino asserted that had the steel grille gate been unchanged, the
injury suffered by them would have been prevented.[18] Spouses Ermino rely on
Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which state:
Malice or bad faith, at the core of Articles 20 and 21, implies a conscious and
intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.[19]
Records of the case reveal that while GVHAI replaced the steel grille gate with a
concrete fence, the construction was not intended to obstruct whatever waters that
may naturally flow from the higher estates.[20] The concrete fence was made to ward
off undesirable elements from entering the subdivision.[21] Thus, for purposes of
Articles 20 and 21, the construction of the concrete fence is not contrary to any law, morals,
good customs, or public policy.
There was also no negligence on the part of GVHAI. The test of negligence is stated in
Picart v. Smith, Jr.:[22]
As correctly found by the CA, when GVHAI decided to construct the concrete fence, it
could not have reasonably foreseen any harm that could occur to Spouses Ermino.[24]
Any prudent person exercising reasonable care and caution could not have envisaged
such an outcome from the mere exercise of a proprietary act.[25]
Indeed, the act of replacing the steel grille gate with a concrete fence was within the
legitimate exercise of GVHAI's proprietary rights over its property. The law recognizes
in the owner the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than
those established by law.[26] Article 430 of the Civil Code provides that "(e)very owner
may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges,
or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon."
Spouses Ermino likewise ascribe liability to GVHAI relying on Article 637 of the Civil
Code and Article 50 of the Water Code, which state:
ARTICLE 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which
naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the higher
estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this
easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will
increase the burden.
ARTICLE 50. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally
and without the intervention of man flow from the higher estates, as well as
the stone or earth which they carry with them.
The responsibility imposed on lower estates to receive waters from higher estates is
illustrated in the early case of Lunod v. Meneses,[27] thus:
The lands of Paraanan being the lower are subject to the easement of
receiving and giving passage to the waters proceeding from the higher lands
and the lake of Calalaran; this easement was not constituted by agreement
between the interested parties; it is of a statutory nature, and the law has
imposed it for the common public utility in view of the difference in the
altitude of the lands in the barrio of Bambang.
The special law cited is the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, article 111 of
which, treating of natural easements relating to waters, provides:
Hence, the owner of the lower lands [cannot] erect works that will impede or
prevent such an easement or charge, constituted and imposed by the law
upon his estate for the benefit of the higher lands belonging to different owners;
neither can the latter do anything to increase or extend the easement.
It is true that article 388 of said code authorizes every owner to enclose his
estate by means of walls, ditches, fences or any other device, but his right is
limited by the easement imposed upon his estate.
Alco Homes and Golden Village are lower in elevation than the Hilltop City Subdivision,
and thus, are legally obliged to receive waters which naturally flow from the latter, as
provided under Article 637 of the Civil Code and Article 50 of the Water Code. These
provisions refer to easements relating to waters. An easement or servitude is "a real
right constituted on another's property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which
the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something
on his property for the benefit of another thing or person."[29] The statutory basis of this
right is Article 613 of the Civil Code which reads:
In this regard, Hilltop City Subdivision, the immovable in favor of which the easement
is established, is the dominant estate; while Alco Homes and Golden Village, those that
are subject of the easement, are the servient estates. It must be noted, however, that
there is a concomitant responsibility on the part of Hilltop City Subdivision not to make
the obligation of these lower estates/servient estates more onerous. This obligation is
enunciated under second paragraph of Article 637, as abovementioned, and Article 627
of the Civil Code:
ARTICLE 627. The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own
expense, on the servient estate any works necessary for the use and
preservation of the servitude, but without altering it or rendering it
more burdensome.
For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate, and shall
choose the most convenient time and manner so as to cause the least
inconvenience to the owner of the servient estate. (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the ocular inspection conducted by the RTC of the Hilltop City Subdivision, the
area was bulldozed and the hills were flattened.[30] There were no retaining walls
constructed to prevent the water from flowing down and the soil was soft.[31] This
flattening of the area due to bulldozing changed the course of water, which ultimately
led to the passing of said water to the house of Spouses Ermino.[32]
The case of Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[33] applying Article 637 of
the Civil Code and Article 50 of the Water Code, is instructive:
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will
impede this natural flow, unless he provides an alternative
method of drainage; neither can the owner of the higher estate make
works which will increase this natural flow.
Thus, the bulldozing and construction works done by E.B. Villarosa, not to mention the
denudation of the vegetation at the Hilltop City Subdivision, made Alco Homes and
Golden Village's obligation, as lower estates, more burdensome than what the law
contemplated. Lower estates are only obliged to receive water naturally flowing
from higher estates and such should be free from any human intervention. In
the instant case, what flowed from Hilltop City Subdivision was not water that naturally
flowed from a higher estate. The bulldozing and flattening of the hills led to the
softening of the soil that could then be easily carried by the current of water whenever
it rained. Thus, Alco Homes and Golden Village are not anymore obligated to receive
such waters and earth coming from Hilltop City Subdivision.
The Court also agrees with the CA's observation that the concrete fence cannot be
considered as an impediment to Golden Village's obligation to receive the water,
because if only naturally flowing water, without any human intervention, cascaded
down from the Hilltop City Subdivision, the concrete fence would not pose as an obstruction
to its flow.[35] In this regard, the closure of the steel grille gate was effected even
before the construction made by E.B. Villarosa.[36]
Therefore, it is ineluctably clear that E.B. Villarosa is responsible for the damage
suffered by Spouses Ermino. E.B. Villarosa should have provided for the necessary
measures such as retaining walls and drainage so that the large volume of water
emanating from it would not unduly cause inconvenience, if not injury, to the lower
estates. E.B. Villarosa's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. Had it only
exercised prudence, reasonable care and caution in the construction of Hilltop City
Subdivision, then Spouses Ermino would not have experienced the injury that they
suffered.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision
dated October 9, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00044 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Acting C.J., (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, A. Reyes, Jr., and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sir/Madam:
Please take notice that on August 15, 2018 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was
received by this Office on October 10, 2018 at 9:50 a.m.
[2] Id. at 59-74. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and concurred in by
[3] Records, Vol. II, pp. 682-698. Penned by Presiding Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo.
[5] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 499, 531 (1999).
[21] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Spouses Custodio v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 575, 587 (1996) citing Jovellanos,
[29] Spouses Valdez v. Spouses Tabisula, 582 Phil. 328, 333-334 (2008) citing 3
[31] Id.