FACTS
Spouses Efren G. Goño and Rafaelita R. Goño owned and operated Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Barangay Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas. Spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim, later substituted by their successors, occupied portions of the shore of Matabungkay Beach where they maintained informal structures and rest houses and operated businesses such as sari-sari stores, carinderias, billiard tables, video machines, and videoke sets. The Goños alleged that these structures and activities caused excessive noise, offensive odors, unsanitary conditions, obstruction of their resort's view, and seepage of wastewater into their property. They also claimed that an open-fire kitchen operated by the Calimlims created a serious fire hazard.
The Goños further alleged that the Calimlims' structures were erected on foreshore land, which was public land covered by Proclamation No. 1801 declaring the area a tourist zone and maritime reserve. The Calimlims' application for a foreshore lease had been denied by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The DENR subsequently issued Notices to Vacate. The Goños also alleged that the Calimlims lacked the necessary building, business, sanitary, and mayor's permits. Despite demands to remove the structures and cease operations, the Calimlims refused. The Goños therefore filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction, with claims for damages and attorney's fees.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nasugbu, Batangas dismissed the complaint. It held that the Goños failed to prove that the Calimlims' activities caused legally compensable damage or constituted a nuisance that could be judicially abated. The RTC also found that the alleged loss of income could not be directly attributed to the Calimlims because other competing businesses operated along Matabungkay Beach. It likewise dismissed the Calimlims' counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof of bad faith on the part of the Goños.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC. It characterized the structures and activities as a public nuisance, particularly because they occupied public foreshore land without authority and caused substantial interference with the Goños' property and business. The CA ordered the demolition and removal of the illegal structures and awarded ₱10,000 temperate damages, ₱10,000 moral damages, ₱10,000 exemplary damages, and ₱10,000 attorney's fees. The Calimlims elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the documentary evidence presented by the Goños should have been excluded for alleged violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule under A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, and whether the CA properly considered the evidence admitted by the RTC.
Whether or not the structures and activities of the Calimlims constituted a public nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code, particularly considering that the structures were erected on public foreshore land without the required government authority.
Whether or not the nuisance could be characterized as a nuisance per se, which may be summarily abated because it directly threatens public health or safety, or merely a nuisance per accidens, which requires judicial determination before abatement.
Whether or not the Goños were entitled to damages and attorney's fees as a result of the nuisance created by the Calimlims' unauthorized occupation and activities.
HELD
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court first rejected the Calimlims' argument concerning the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Goños' witness, Rafaelita, identified the documentary exhibits in her judicial affidavit and subsequently affirmed in open court that she had executed the affidavit and that its contents and identified exhibits were true. Since the purpose of a judicial affidavit is to take the place of the witness's direct testimony, the Court found no violation warranting exclusion of the evidence. Moreover, the Calimlims failed to timely object to the admission of the exhibits during trial; consequently, any objection to their authentication was deemed waived.
The Court applied Article 694 of the Civil Code, which defines a nuisance as an act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else that, among others, injures or endangers health or safety, annoys or offends the senses, obstructs or interferes with the free passage of public highways or bodies of water, or hinders or impairs the use of property. The Court explained that a nuisance may be public or private. A public nuisance affects a community, neighborhood, or considerable number of persons, or interferes with a right common to the general public. A private nuisance, on the other hand, affects only private rights and ordinarily causes injury to one or a few persons.
The Court held that the Calimlims' structures constituted a public nuisance. The land they occupied was foreshore land, meaning the portion of the shore alternately covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide. Under Section 61 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, foreshore lands may be disposed of only through a lease. Thus, a person cannot lawfully occupy, develop, or use foreshore land without the proper authority and a valid foreshore lease from the DENR. Here, the Calimlims' own application for a foreshore lease had been denied, and the DENR had issued Notices to Vacate. Their continued unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore therefore constituted an interference with public property and a public right.
The Court also found that the manner in which the Calimlims operated their businesses created serious threats to health and safety. Wastewater from their toilets seeped toward the Goños' property and created offensive odors; their open-fire kitchen posed a continuing danger of fire; and their structures lacked necessary permits and were erected on public foreshore land. The Court noted that an actual fire had previously occurred and was extinguished only after Efren Goño used a fire extinguisher from Villa Alexandra. These circumstances demonstrated that the interference was not merely an inconvenience or ordinary competition between businesses, but involved an unauthorized occupation of public land accompanied by conditions that endangered persons and property.
The Court distinguished between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per se is inherently and immediately dangerous to public health or safety and may be summarily abated under the law of necessity. A nuisance per accidens, meanwhile, depends upon particular circumstances and must ordinarily be established through judicial proceedings. Citing Sitchon v. Aquino and Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corp., the Court explained that structures unlawfully occupying public streets or waterways may constitute nuisances per se. In the present case, however, the Court's determination that the Calimlims' structures were a public nuisance was sufficient to sustain the judicial abatement ordered by the CA.
Finally, the Court upheld the award of ₱10,000 temperate damages, ₱10,000 moral damages, ₱10,000 exemplary damages, and ₱10,000 attorney's fees. The Goños were unable to establish the exact amount of their business losses, but the Court found that they had nevertheless suffered actual injury and inconvenience from the nuisance for many years. Temperate damages were therefore proper where some pecuniary loss was established but its precise amount could not be proved. Moral damages were justified by the substantial disturbance and anxiety caused by the nuisance, while exemplary damages were imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Attorney's fees were likewise proper because the Goños were compelled to litigate to protect their rights. All monetary awards were ordered to earn 6% legal interest per annum.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the September 13, 2023 Decision and February 1, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Calimlims were ordered to demolish the illegal structures and vacate the premises around Matabungkay Beach in front of Villa Alexandra, and the monetary awards in favor of the Goños were sustained.
No comments:
Post a Comment