PROPERTY CASES ON NUISANCE

1) AC Enterprises, Inc. vs. Frabelle Properties Corp., ) CITY OF !ANI"A vs. #ERAR$O #ARCIA, et.al. %) !ACARIO SO"IS vs. &ENE$ICTA PU'E$A () 'ARCO !AR)ETIN# CORPORATION vs. *ONORA&"E COURT OF APPEA"S +) *I$A"#O ENTERPRISES, INC vs. #UI""ER!O &A"AN$AN ,) ON#SIA)O, ET. A". vs. ON#SIA)O, ET. A" -) RTC 'U$#E CA!I"O E. TA!IN vs. COURT OF APPEA"S .) $IOS$A$O A. SITC*ON, ET A"., vs. A"E'O A/UINO 0) 1ICTORIANA ESPIRITU vs. T*E !UNICIPA" COUNCI", et. al. 12) 'UAN &EN#3ON vs. T*E PRO1INCE OF PAN#ASINAN 11) T*E *O!EO4NERS ASSOCIATION OF E" $EPOSITO vs. *ON. #UAR$SON "OO$ 1 ) TRINI$A$ $E AYA"A, ET A". vs. ANTONIO !. &ARRETTO, ET A". 1%) ERNESTO &ERNA"ES vs. IAC 1() FE"ICI$A$ 1$A. $E CA&RERA vs. COURT OF APPEA"S

CITY OF !ANI"A vs. #ERAR$O #ARCIA

#.R. No. "5 ,2+% SANC*E3, J.:

Febr6ar7 1, 10,-

Plaintiff City of Manila is owner of parcels of land, forming one compact area, bordering Kansas, Vermont and Singalong streets in Malate, Manila, and covered by Torrens Titles Nos. 4 !"#, #!$%& and #!''%. S(ortly after liberation from ) 4' to ) 4!, defendants entered *pon t(ese premises wit(o*t plaintiff+s ,nowledge and consent. T(ey b*ilt (o*ses of second-class materials, again wit(o*t plaintiff+s ,nowledge and consent, and wit(o*t t(e necessary b*ilding permits from t(e city. T(ere t(ey lived t(r* t(e years to t(e present. .n November, ) 4!, t(e presence of defendants (aving previo*sly been discovered, defendants /elicidad Miranda 01migdio 1gipto2, Modesta C. Parayno, 3enedicto 4ia5, 6a*reano 4i5o, 7ose 3arrientos, 1lena 8amos, 1stefania Nepacina, Modesta Sanc(e5, 9onorio 3eri:o, ;loria Velasco, <na 4e=*is <l*nan and 3enedicto >fia5a 0predecessor of defendant Carandang2 were given by Mayor Valeriano 1. /*goso written permits ? eac( labeled @lease contract@ ? to occ*py specific areas in t(e property *pon conditions t(erein set fort(. 4efendants .sabelo >baob and ;erardo ;arcia 0in t(e name of Marta <. Villan*eva2 received t(eir permits from Mayor Man*el de la /*ente on 7an*ary & and Marc( )%, respectively, bot( of ) 4%. T(e rest of t(e &# defendants eA(ibited none. /or t(eir occ*pancy, defendants were c(arged nominal rentals. 1wph1.t /ollowing are t(e rentals d*e as of /ebr*ary, ) "&B Area Monthly in sq.m. Rental "".$$ %!.!' # .$$ #'.&$ 3arrios '4.$$ #'.$$ # ."$ !'.'& # .'# P!. & )$.'# 4."% '.!" 4.#& &.%$ #.)! .$" 4.!4 '."$ &.!% #.#4 &."% Amt. due from date of delinquency to e!. 1"#$ P),"&%. ! #! .$% .#" '!$.&4 .#" &&.4$ #&#.#4 &$%.#% !44.)% Paid *p /eb. ) "&. )%".&" '$4.#4 444.%% to

NAME ). ;erardo ;arcia &. Modesta C. Parayno #. 7*an <speras 4. Maria Tabia '. <=*ilino 06eonora 8*i52 ". 6a*reano 4i5o !. 3ernabe <y*da %. .sabelo >baob . 7ose 3arrientos

)$. Cecilia Man5ano in lie* of Crbano 8amos 0deceased2 4"."' )). 1lena 8amos )&. 1stefania Nepacina )#. Modesta Sanc(e5 #4.%$ 4).%$ ##.4%

)4. Marcial 6a5aro )'. Marciana <lano )". 9onorio 3eri:o )!. ;loria Velasco )%. Dilarico 8icamata ) . 3enedicto 4ia5 &$. <na 4e=*is <l*nan &). 6oren5o Carandang &&. 7*an N. Pecayo &#. /elicidad Miranda

&&.4$ &'.%$ &4.$$ #&.4$ 4'.%# 4$.&$ "4.&" 4'.$# &'.'& 4%.$&

).! &.$" ). & &.' #."! 4.%& !.!) '.4$ #.$" '.!"

"%%.#& &''.44 )%%.)" '". % !# ."% Paid *p Marc( ) "&. #$.%4 4#!.4$ #$."$ )#&.4% P!,'%$." to

1pifanio de los Santos 1lementary Sc(ool is close, t(o*g( not contig*o*s, to t(e property. Came t(e need for t(is sc(ool+s eApansionE it became pressing. >n September )4, ) "), plaintiff+s City 1ngineer, p*rs*ant to t(e Mayor+s directive to clear s=*atters+ (o*ses on city property, gave eac( of defendants t(irty 0#$2 days to vacate and remove (is constr*ction or improvement on t(e premises. T(is was followed by t(e City Treas*rer+s demand on eac( defendant, made in /ebr*ary and Marc(, ) "&, for t(e payment of t(e amo*nt d*e by reason of t(e occ*pancy and to vacate in fifteen 0)'2 days. 4efendants ref*sed. 9ence, t(is s*it to recover possession. & T(e F*dgment below directed defendants to vacate t(e premisesE to pay t(e amo*nts (eretofore indicated opposite t(eir respective namesE and to pay t(eir mont(ly rentals from Marc(, ) "&, *ntil t(ey vacate t(e said premises, and t(e costs. 4efendants appealed. ). De are called *pon to r*le on t(e forefront =*estion of w(et(er t(e trial co*rt properly fo*nd t(at t(e city needs t(e premises for sc(ool p*rposes. T(e city+s evidence on t(is point is 1A(ibit 1, t(e certification of t(e C(airman, Committee on <ppropriations of t(e M*nicipal 3oard. T(at doc*ment recites t(at t(e amo*nt of P)$$,$$$.$$ (ad been set aside in >rdinance 4'"", t(e ) "&-) "# Manila City 3*dget, for t(e constr*ction of an additional b*ilding of t(e 1pifanio de los Santos 1lementary Sc(ool. .t is indeed correct to say t(at t(e co*rt below, at t(e (earing, r*led o*t t(e admissibility of said doc*ment. 3*t t(en, in t(e decision *nder review, t(e trial F*dge obvio*sly revised (is views. 9e t(ere declared t(at t(ere was need for defendants to vacate t(e premises for sc(ool eApansionE (e cited t(e very doc*ment, 1A(ibit 1, aforesaid. .t is beyond debate t(at a co*rt of F*stice may alter its r*ling w(ile t(e case is wit(in its power, to ma,e it conformable to law and F*stice. # S*c( was done (ere. 4efendants+ remedy was to bring to t(e attention of t(e co*rt its contradictory stance. Not (aving done so, t(is Co*rt will not reopen t(e case solely for t(is p*rpose. 4 <nyway, elimination of t(e certification, 1A(ibit 1, as evidence, wo*ld not profit defendants. /or, in reversing (is stand, t(e trial F*dge co*ld well (ave ta,en ? beca*se t(e was d*ty

bo*nd to ta,e ? F*dicial notice ' of >rdinance 4'"". T(e reason being t(at t(e city c(arter of Manila re=*ires all co*rts sitting t(erein to ta,e F*dicial notice of all ordinances passed by t(e m*nicipal board of Manila." <nd, >rdinance 4'"" itself confirms t(e certification aforesaid t(at an appropriation of P)$$,$$$.$$ was set aside for t(e @constr*ction of additional b*ilding@ of t(e 1pifanio de los Santos 1lementary Sc(ool. /*rt(ermore, defendants+ position is v*lnerable to assa*lt from a t(ird direction. 4efendants (ave absol*tely no rig(t to remain in t(e premises. T(e eAc*se t(at t(ey (ave permits from t(e mayor is at best flimsy. T(e permits to occ*py are recoverable on t(irty days+ notice. T(ey (ave been as,ed to leaveE t(ey ref*sed to (eed. .t is in t(is fact*al bac,gro*nd t(at we say t(at t(e city+s need for t(e premises is *nimportant. T(e city+s rig(t to t(row defendants o*t of t(e area cannot be gainsaid. T(e city+s dominical rig(t to possession is paramo*nt. .f error t(ere was in t(e finding t(at t(e city needs t(e land, s*c( error is (armless and will not F*stify reversal of t(e F*dgment below. ! &. 3*t defendants insist t(at t(ey (ave ac=*ired t(e legal stat*s of tenants. T(ey are wrong. T(ey entered t(e land, b*ilt (o*ses of second-class materials t(ereon wit(o*t t(e ,nowledge and consent of t(e city. T(eir (omes were erected wit(o*t city permits. T(ese constr*ctions are illegal. .n a lang*age familiar to all, defendants are s=*attersB Since t(e last global war, s=*atting on anot(er+s property in t(is co*ntry (as become a widespread vice. .t was and is a blig(t. S=*atters+ areas pose problems of (ealt(, sanitation. T(ey are breeding places for crime. T(ey constit*te proof t(at respect for t(e law and t(e rig(ts of ot(ers, even t(ose of t(e government, are being flo*ted. Knowingly, s=*atters (ave embar,ed on t(e pernicio*s act of occ*pying property w(enever and w(erever convenient to t(eir interests ? wit(o*t as m*c( as leave, and even against t(e will, of t(e owner. T(ey are emboldened seemingly beca*se of t(eir belief t(at t(ey co*ld violate t(e law wit( imp*nity. T(e p*gnacio*sness of some of t(em (as tied *p t(e (ands of legitimate owners. T(e latter are t(*s prevented from recovering possession by peacef*l means. ;overnment lands (ave not been spared by t(em. T(ey ,now, of co*rse, t(at intr*sion into property, government or private, is wrong. 3*t, t(en, t(e mills of F*stice grind slow, mainly beca*se of lawyers w(o, by means, fair or fo*l, are =*ite often s*ccessf*l in proc*ring delay of t(e day of rec,oning. 8ampancy of forcible entry into government lands partic*larly, is abetted by t(e apat(y of some p*blic officials to enforce t(e government+s rig(ts. >bstinacy of t(ese s=*atters is diffic*lt to eAplain *nless it is spawned by official tolerance, if not o*trig(t enco*ragement or protection. Said s=*atters (ave become insensible to t(e difference between rig(t and wrong. To t(em, violation of law means not(ing. Dit( t(e res*lt t(at s=*atting still eAists, m*c( to t(e detriment of p*blic interest. .t is (ig( time t(at, in t(is aspect, sanity and t(e r*le of law be restored. .t is in t(is environment t(at we loo, into t(e validity of t(e permits granted defendants (erein. T(ese permits, erroneo*sly labeled @lease@ contracts, were iss*ed by t(e mayors in ) 4! and ) 4% w(en t(e effects of t(e war (ad simmered down and w(en t(ese defendants co*ld (ave very well adF*sted t(emselves. Two decades (ave now elapsed since t(e *nlawf*l entry. 4efendants co*ld (ave, if t(ey wanted to, located permanent premises for t(eir abode. <nd yet, *s*rpers t(at t(ey are, t(ey preferred to remain on city property. 4efendants+ entry as aforesaid was illegal. T(eir constr*ctions are as illegal, wit(o*t

permits.% T(e city c(arter enFoins t(e mayor to @safeg*ard all t(e lands@ of t(e City of Manila. S*rely eno*g(, t(e permits granted did not @safe%uard@ t(e city+s land in =*estion. .t is o*r considered view t(at t(e Mayor of t(e City of Manila cannot legali5e forcible entry into p*blic property by t(e simple eApedient of giving permits, or, for t(at matter, eAec*ting leases. S=*atting is *nlawf*l and no amo*nt of ac=*iescence on t(e part of t(e city officials will elevate it into a lawf*l act. .n principle, a compo*nd of illegal entry and official permit to stay is obnoAio*s to o*r concept of proper official norm of cond*ct. 3eca*se, s*c( permit does not serve social F*sticeE it fosters moral decadence. .t does not promote p*blic welfareE it abets disrespect for t(e law. .t (as its roots in viceE so it is an infected bargain. >fficial approval of s=*atting s(o*ld not, t(erefore, be permitted to obtain in t(is co*ntry w(ere t(ere is an orderly form of government. De, accordingly, r*le t(at t(e Manila mayors did not (ave a*t(ority to give permits, written or oral, to defendants, and t(at t(e permits (erein granted are n*ll and void. #. 6et *s loo, into t(e (o*ses and constr*ctions planted by defendants on t(e premises. T(ey clearly (inder and impair t(e *se of t(at property for sc(ool p*rposes. T(e co*rts may well ta,e F*dicial notice of t(e fact t(at (o*sing sc(ool c(ildren in t(e elementary grades (as been and still is a perennial problem in t(e city. T(e selfis( interests of defendants m*st (ave to yield to t(e general good. T(e p*blic p*rpose of constr*cting t(e sc(ool b*ilding anneA is paramo*nt.)$ .n t(e sit*ation t(*s obtaining, t(e (o*ses and constr*ctions aforesaid constit*te p*blic n*isance per se. <nd t(is, for t(e reason t(at t(ey (inder and impair t(e *se of t(e property for a badly needed sc(ool b*ilding, to t(e preF*dice of t(e ed*cation of t(e yo*t( of t(e land.)) T(ey s(ac,le t(e (ands of t(e government and t(*s obstr*ct performance of its constit*tionally ordained obligation to establis( and maintain a complete and ade=*ate system of p*blic ed*cation, and more, to &pro'ide at least free pu!lic primary instruction @.)& 8eason dictates t(at no f*rt(er delay s(o*ld be co*ntenanced. T(e p*blic n*isance co*ld well (ave been s*mmarily abated by t(e city a*t(orities t(emselves, e'en without the aid of the courts.)# 4. 4efendants c(allenge t(e F*risdiction of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila. T(ey say t(at t(e case s(o*ld (ave been started in t(e m*nicipal co*rt. T(ey prop *p t(eir position by t(e averment t(at notice for t(em to vacate was only served in September, ) "), and s*it was started in 7*ly, ) "&. T(eir legal gro*nd is Section ), 8*le !$ of t(e 8*les of Co*rt. De (ave reac(ed t(e concl*sion t(at t(eir forcible entry dates bac, to t(e period from ) 4' to ) 4!. T(at entry was not legali5ed by t(e permits. T(eir possession contin*ed to remain illegal from incipiency. S*it was filed long after t(e one-year limitation set fort( in Section ) of 8*le !$. <nd t(e Manila Co*rt of /irst .nstance (as F*risdiction. )4 Cpon t(e premises, we vote to affirm t(e F*dgment *nder review. Costs against defendantsappellants. So ordered.

!ACARIO SO"IS, et al v. &ENE$ICTA PU'E$A #.R. No. 1,%0 . 'an6ar7 1%, 10 SY""A&US ). 1<S1M1NTS <N4 S18V.TC41SE 3CTT81SS />8 4<M CP>N PC36.C D<T18SE <4M.N.ST8<T.V1 <CT9>8.TG >/ 4.81CT>8 >/ 6<N4SE C>NST.TCT.>N<6 6<D. ? <ss*ming t(at t(e 4irector of 6ands, as C(ief of t(e 3*rea* of 6ands, is t(e proper administrative a*t(ority, to ma,e an order declaring an easement of b*ttress wit( respect to land lying adFacent to p*blic waters, as contemplated in article )4# of t(e 6aw of Daters, nevert(eless t(e eAercise of t(is power m*st proceed along t(e lines of a F*dicial investigation, at least to t(e eAtent t(at t(e interested parties s(all (ave an opport*nity to be (eard and t(at record s(all be made of t(e proof *pon w(ic( t(e action ta,en by t(e 4irector of 6ands is based. >t(erwise t(e decreeing of t(e servit*de is obnoAio*s to t(e constit*tional provision w(ic( forbids t(e ta,ing of private property wit(o*t d*e process of law. STREET, J.8 T(e defendant 3enedicta P*Feda is t(e owner of a strip of land in t(e barrio of Calib*yo, m*nicipality of Tan5a Cavite, 6ying along a stream ,nown as t(e estero of Calib*yo. Prior to t(e instit*tion of t(is action t(e t(ree plaintiffs named in t(e caption (ereof constr*cted a dam of stone or concrete across said stream in order to obtain water for irrigation p*rposes, and one of t(e wings of t(e dam was made to rest *pon t(e ban, w(ic( belongs to 3enedicta P*Feda. <s a res*lt of t(is constr*ction, not only were several s=*are meters of land belonging to 3enedicta P*Feda appropriated by t(e plaintiffs for p*rposes of constr*ction, b*t several (*ndred additional s=*are meters 6ying along t(e stream above t(e dam and belonging to (er were flooded by t(e rise of t(e water conse=*ent *pon t(e b*ilding of t(e dam. 3elieving (erself to be aggrieved by t(is, 3enedicta P*Feda, wit( t(e aid of one 8oman <ranas, on or abo*t 7*ly &$, ) )%, made an opening in t(at portion of t(e dam w(ic( ab*ts *pon (er property, to t(e eAtent necessary to free t(e water t(at (ad acc*m*lated *pon (er property. T(e perforation t(*s effected in t(e dam was abo*t ) meter wide and & meters deep. T(ereafter t(e present action was instit*ted by t(e plaintiffs to restrain 3enedicta P*Feda 0wit( w(om is Foined (er (*sband Valentin ;iongco2 and 8oman <ranas from interfering wit( t(e reparation of t(e dam by t(e plaintiffs, and to enFoin t(e same defendants from molesting t(e plaintiffs in t(e *se of said dam in t(e f*t*re. T(e plaintiffs also as,ed t(at t(e defendants be

adF*dged to pay t(e s*m of P $ to t(e plaintiffs as damages res*lting from t(e brea,ing of t(e dam. T(e defendants answered generally and interposed a co*nterclaim, praying t(at t(ey be absolved from t(e complaint and t(at t(e plaintiffs in t*rn be re=*ired to remove t(e aforesaid dam and t(at t(ey be enFoined from reconstr*cting it or maintaining any ot(er dam in t(at place to t(e preF*dice of t(e defendants. T(e defendants f*rt(ermore prayed t(at t(e plaintiffs s(o*ld be re=*ired to pay damages to t(e defendants in t(e amo*nt of P#,$$$, wit( costs. <t t(e (earing t(e trial F*dge fo*nd t(e iss*es in favor of t(e plaintiffs, and decreed accordingly. /rom t(is F*dgment t(e defendants appealed <s no transcript of t(e oral testimony appears in t(e record, t(e facts m*st be ta,en as fo*nd by t(e trial F*dge, in relation wit( t(e doc*ments to w(ic( reference is made in (is opinion. T(e =*estion before *s is, w(et(er t(e plaintiffs (ave F*stified t(e invasion by t(em of t(e rig(ts of 3enedicta P*Feda in t(e manner above stated, for it is evident t(at if t(e b*ilding of t(e dam by t(e plaintiffs was *na*t(ori5ed, so m*c( of t(e constr*ction as rests *pon t(e land of 3enedicta P*Feda constit*tes a private n*isance and may be lawf*lly demolis(ed or removed by (er or by any person acting *nder (er directions. .t is inc*mbent *pon t(e plaintiffs to prove t(at t(ey (ad legal a*t(ority to b*ild t(e dam. .n t(is connection it appears t(at w(en t(is wor, was first *nderta,en several years ago, t(e plaintiffs eApected to obtain t(e approval of t(e 4irector of 6ands for t(e proFect, and at t(at time t(ey promised to indemnify 3enedicta P*Feda for any damage ca*sed to (er by t(e constr*ction of t(e dam. 9owever, after t(e wor, (ad progressed to a certain eAtent, t(e 4irector of 6ands ordered its removal. 6ater, t(e 4irector of 6ands proposed as a reasonable sol*tion of t(e controversy t(at, if t(e plaintiffs desired to contin*e wit( t(e constr*ction of t(e dam, t(ey s(o*ld wit(in t(irty days deposit wit( t(e 3*rea* of 6ands t(e s*m of P#!)."% to cover t(e damage t(at wo*ld probably be done to 3enedicta P*Feda. T(is deposit was apparently made. Still later, *pon f*rt(er protest from 3enedicta P*Feda, sec*rity was given by bond to t(e eAtent of P),$$$. T(e 4irector of 6ands (aving t(*s, inferentially at least, approved t(e proFect *nder t(e conditions stated, t(e plain- tiffs proceeded wit( t(e constr*ction, and reliance is now placed by t(em *pon t(e a*t(ority t(*s granted by t(e 4irector of 6ands as s*fficient F*stification for t(eir contin*ing t(e wor,. <ss*ming, as we do, t(at t(e 4irector of 6ands intended, by t(e comm*nications referred to in t(e decision of t(e trial F*dge, to a*t(ori5e t(e *nderta,ing referred to, are nevert(eless of t(e opinion t(at *nder t(e facts appearing of record (e (ad no power to confer s*c( a*t(ority. 3y article )4# of t(e 6aw of Daters, an easement of b*ttress can be imposed by administrative a*t(ority wit( respect to land 6ying adFacent to p*blic or private watersE b*t in s*c( case it is re=*ired t(at an investigation of record s(all be made before t(e easement of b*ttress is decreed. /or t(e p*rposes of t(is decision it may be ta,en for granted t(at t(e 3*rea* of 6ands is t(e proper repository of t(e administrative a*t(ority conferred in said article wit( respect to t(e decreeing of t(e easement in case of p*blic waters, and t(e 4irector of 6ands may be ass*med to be t(e proper official to cond*ct t(e investigation and ma,e t(e appropriate order. Nevert(eless, t(e ma,ing of t(e investigation of record is an essential prere=*isite to t(e eAercise of t(e power. T(is implies t(at t(e interested parties s(all (ave an opport*nity to be (eard and t(at record be made of t(e proof add*ced wit( reference to t(e proposed servit*de and t(e damage to res*lt t(erefrom. T(ese formalities are essentialE ot(erwise t(e decreeing of t(e servit*de wo*ld be obnoAio*s to t(e constit*tional provision w(ic( forbids t(e ta,ing of property wit(o*t d*e process of law. T(e administrative investigation contemplated in article )4# of t(e 6aw of Daters m*st proceed along t(e lines of a F*dicial in=*iry, at least to t(e eAtent of giving t(e parties an opport*nity to be (eard an

ma,ing

record

of

t(e

proof

pertinent

to

t(eir

respective

contentions.

.n t(e case now before *s no investigation of record was made. <bo*t all t(at appears to (ave been done was t(at t(e watermaster, as representative of t(e 4irector of 6ands inspected t(e site of t(e dam and recommended t(at it b removed, reporting t(at it (ad been a fail*re. T(e letters referred to by t(e co*rt as constit*ting a license from t(e 4irector of 6ands to t(e plaintiffs to proceed wit( t(e wor,, *nder t(e conditions already stated, s(ow a praisewort(y effort on t(e part of t(at official to adF*st t(e controversy *pon a fair basis, b*t t(ey afford no legal warrant for t(e plaintiffs to proceed wit( t(e constr*ction of t(e dam. .t appears t(at t(e land owned by 3enedicta P*Feda is of t(e class ,nown as friar landsE and (is 9onor, t(e trial F*dge seems to (ave s*pposed t(at section ) of <ct No. ))&$, referring to t(ese lands, gives t(e ;overnment special a*t(ority to constr*ct, or to a*t(ori5e anot(er to constr*ct, improvements of t(is c(aracter *pon s*c( lands. 9owever, we discover not(ing in said provision w(ic(, w(en rig(tly interpreted, co*ld be considered as conferring *pon t(e 4irector of 6ands any s*c( eAtraordinary power as (as (ere claimed. .t res*lts t(at t(e dam in =*estion (as been constr*cted wit(o*t legal a*t(ority, and t(e action instit*ted by t(e plaintiffs cannot be maintained. T(e F*dgment appealed from will t(erefore be reversed, and t(e defendants will be absolved from t(e complaint. Cnder t(e prayer of t(eir cross-complaint t(e defendants 3enedicta P*Feda, wit( (er (*sband, Valentin ;iongco, are entitled to an order, w(ic( will be accordingly entered, re=*iring t(e plaintiffs wit(in a reasonable time to remove so m*c( of t(e dam as constit*tes a b*rden *pon t(e land of 3enedicta P*Feda, and to t(e eAtent necessary to avoid t(e flooding of (er land by t(e obstr*ction of t(e dam. .n addition to t(is, F*dgment will be entered t(at t(e same defendants recover of t(e plaintiffs t(e s*m of P%$, pl*s t(e f*rt(er s*m of P".%$ for eac( year from <pril, ) )', *ntil t(e obstr*ction mentioned s(all (ave been removed, as ordered. No special prono*ncement will be made as to costs of eit(er instance. So ordered.

'ARCO !AR)ETIN# CORPORATION vs. *ONORA&"E COURT OF APPEA"S #.R. No. 1 0-0 . $ece9ber 1, 1000

$A1I$E, 'R., C.J.8 .n t(is petition for review on certiorari *nder) 8*le 4' of t(e 8*les of Co*rt, petitioners see, t(e reversal of t(e )! 7*ne ) " decision H)I of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals in C.<. ;.8. No. CV #! #! and t(e resol*tionH&Idenying t(eir motion for reconsideration. T(e assailed decision set aside t(e )' 7an*ary ) & F*dgment of t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt 08TC2, Ma,ati City, 3ranc( "$ in Civil Case No. !)) and ordered petitioners to pay damages and attorneyJs fees to private respondents Conrado and Criselda 0C8.S164<2 <g*ilar. Petitioner 7arco Mar,eting Corporation is t(e owner of SyvelJs 4epartment Store, Ma,ati City. Petitioners 6eonardo Kong, 7ose Tiope and 1lisa Panelo are t(e storeJs branc( manager, operations manager, and s*pervisor, respectively. Private respondents are spo*ses and t(e parents of K(ienet( <g*ilar 0K9.1N1T92. .n t(e afternoon of May ) %#, C8.S164< and K9.1N1T9 were at t(e &nd floor of SyvelJs 4epartment Store, Ma,ati City. C8.S164< was signing (er credit card slip at t(e payment and verification co*nter w(en s(e felt a s*dden g*st of wind and (eard a lo*d t(*d. S(e loo,ed be(ind (er. S(e t(en be(eld (er da*g(ter K9.1N1T9 on t(e floor, (er yo*ng body pinned by t(e b*l, of t(e storeJs gift-wrapping co*nterLstr*ct*re. K9.1N1T9 was crying and screaming for (elp. <lt(o*g( s(oc,ed, C8.S164< was =*ic, to as, t(e assistance of t(e people aro*nd in lifting t(e co*nter and retrieving K9.1N1T9 from t(e floor. H#I K9.1N1T9 was =*ic,ly r*s(ed to t(e Ma,ati Medical Center w(ere s(e was operated on. T(e neAt day K9.1N1T9 lost (er speec( and t(ereafter comm*nicated wit( C8.S164< by writing on a magic slate. T(e inF*ries s(e s*stained too, t(eir toil on (er yo*ng body. S(e died fo*rteen 0)42 days after t(e accident or on && May ) %#, on t(e (ospital bed. S(e was siA years old.H4I T(e ca*se of (er deat( was attrib*ted to t(e inF*ries s(e s*stained. T(e provisional medical certificateH'I iss*ed by K9.1N1T9Js attending doctor described t(e eAtent of (er inF*riesB 4iagnosesB ). S(oc,, severe, sec. to intra-abdominal inF*ries d*e to bl*nt inF*ry &. 9emorr(age, massive, intraperitoneal sec. to laceration, 062 lobe liver #. 8*pt*re, stomac(, anterior M posterior walls 4. Complete transection, 4t( position, d*oden*m '. 9ematoma, eAtensive, retroperitoneal ". Cont*sion, l*ngs, severe C8.T.C<6 <fter t(e b*rial of t(eir da*g(ter, private respondents demanded *pon petitioners t(e reimb*rsement of t(e (ospitali5ation, medical bills and wa,e and f*neral eApenses H"I w(ic( t(ey (ad inc*rred. Petitioners ref*sed to pay. Conse=*ently, private respondents filed a complaint for damages, doc,eted as Civil Case No. !)) w(erein t(ey so*g(t t(e payment

of P)'!,'&&.%" for act*al damages, P#$$,$$$ for moral damages, P&$,$$$ for attorneyJs fees and an *nspecified amo*nt for loss of income and eAemplary damages. .n t(eir answer wit( co*nterclaim, petitioners denied any liability for t(e inF*ries and conse=*ent deat( of K9.1N1T9. T(ey claimed t(at C8.S164< was negligent in eAercising care and diligence over (er da*g(ter by allowing (er to freely roam aro*nd in a store filled wit( glassware and appliances. K9.1N1T9 too, was g*ilty of contrib*tory negligence since s(e climbed t(e co*nter, triggering its event*al collapse on (er. Petitioners also emp(asi5ed t(at t(e co*nter was made of st*rdy wood wit( a strong s*pportE it never fell nor collapsed for t(e past fifteen years since its constr*ction. <dditionally, petitioner 7arco Mar,eting Corporation maintained t(at it observed t(e diligence of a good fat(er of a family in t(e selection, s*pervision and control of its employees. T(e ot(er petitioners li,ewise raised d*e care and diligence in t(e performance of t(eir d*ties and co*ntered t(at t(e complaint was malicio*s for w(ic( t(ey s*ffered besmirc(ed rep*tation and mental ang*is(. T(ey so*g(t t(e dismissal of t(e complaint and an award of moral and eAemplary damages and attorneyJs fees in t(eir favor. .n its decisionH!I t(e trial co*rt dismissed t(e complaint and co*nterclaim after finding t(at t(e preponderance of t(e evidence favored petitioners. .t r*led t(at t(e proAimate ca*se of t(e fall of t(e co*nter on K9.1N1T9 was (er act of clinging to it. .t believed petitionersJ witnesses w(o testified t(at K9.1N1T9 cl*ng to t(e co*nter, afterw(ic( t(e str*ct*re and t(e girl fell wit( t(e str*ct*re falling on top of (er, pinning (er stomac(. .n contrast, none of private respondentsJ witnesses testified on (ow t(e co*nter fell. T(e trial co*rt also (eld t(at C8.S164<Js negligence contrib*ted to K9.1N1T9Js accident. .n absolving petitioners from any liability, t(e trial co*rt reasoned t(at t(e co*nter was sit*ated at t(e end or corner of t(e &nd floor as a preca*tionary meas*re (ence, it co*ld not be considered as an attractive n*isance. H%I T(e co*nter was (ig(er t(an K9.1N1T9. .t (as been in eAistence for fifteen years. .ts str*ct*re was safe and well-balanced. K9.1N1T9, t(erefore, (ad no b*siness climbing on and clinging to it. Private respondents appealed t(e decision, attrib*ting as errors of t(e trial co*rt its findings t(atB 0)2 t(e proAimate ca*se of t(e fall of t(e co*nter was K9.1N1T9Js misbe(aviorE 0&2 C8.S164< was negligent in (er care of K9.1N1T9E 0#2 petitioners were not negligent in t(e maintenance of t(e co*nterE and 042 petitioners were not liable for t(e deat( of K9.1N1T9. /*rt(er, private respondents asserted t(at K9.1N1T9 s(o*ld be entitled to t(e concl*sive pres*mption t(at a c(ild below nine 0 2 years is incapable of contrib*tory negligence. <nd even if K9.1N1T9, at siA 0"2 years old, was already capable of contrib*tory negligence, still it was p(ysically impossible for (er to (ave propped (erself on t(e co*nter. S(e (ad a small frame 0fo*r feet (ig( and seventy po*nds2 and t(e co*nter was m*c( (ig(er and (eavier t(an s(e was. <lso, t(e testimony of one of t(e storeJs former employees, ;erardo ;on5ales, w(o accompanied K9.1N1T9 w(en s(e was bro*g(t to t(e emergency room of t(e Ma,ati Medical Center belied petitionersJ t(eory t(at K9.1N1T9 climbed t(e co*nter. ;on5ales claimed t(at w(en K9.1N1T9 was as,ed by t(e doctor w(at s(e did, K9.1N1T9 replied, NHNIot(ing, . did not come near t(e co*nter and t(e co*nter F*st fell on me.O H I <ccordingly, ;on5alesJ testimony on K9.1N1T9Js spontaneo*s declaration s(o*ld not only be considered as part of res %estae b*t also accorded credit. Moreover, negligence co*ld not be imp*ted to C8.S164< for it was reasonable for (er to (ave let go of K9.1N1T9 at t(e precise moment t(at s(e was signing t(e credit card slip. /inally, private respondents vigoro*sly maintained t(at t(e proAimate ca*se of K9.1N1T9Js

deat(, was petitionersJ negligence in failing to instit*te meas*res to (ave t(e co*nter permanently nailed. >n t(e ot(er (and, petitioners arg*ed t(at private respondents raised p*rely fact*al iss*es w(ic( co*ld no longer be dist*rbed. T(ey eAplained t(at K9.1N1T9Js deat( w(ile *nfort*nate and tragic, was an accident for w(ic( neit(er C8.S164< nor even K9.1N1T9 co*ld entirely be (eld fa*ltless and blameless. /*rt(er, petitioners adverted to t(e trial co*rtJs reFection of ;on5alesJ testimony as *nwort(y of credence. <s to private respondentJs claim t(at t(e co*nter s(o*ld (ave been nailed to t(e gro*nd, petitioners F*stified t(at it was not necessary. T(e co*nter (ad been in eAistence for several years wit(o*t any prior accident and was deliberately placed at a corner to avoid s*c( accidents. Tr*t( to tell, t(ey acted wit(o*t fa*lt or negligence for t(ey (ad eAercised d*e diligence on t(e matter. .n fact, t(e criminal caseH)$I for (omicide t(ro*g( simple negligence filed by private respondents against t(e individ*al petitioners was dismissedE a verdict of ac=*ittal was rendered in t(eir favor. T(e Co*rt of <ppeals, (owever, decided in favor of private respondents and reversed t(e appealed F*dgment. .t fo*nd t(at petitioners were negligent in maintaining a str*ct*rally dangero*s co*nter. T(e co*nter was s(aped li,e an inverted N6O H))I wit( a top wider t(an t(e base. .t was top (eavy and t(e weig(t of t(e *pper portion was neit(er evenly distrib*ted nor s*pported by its narrow base. T(*s, t(e co*nter was defective, *nstable and dangero*sE a downward press*re on t(e over(anging portion or a p*s( from t(e front co*ld ca*se t(e co*nter to fall. Two former employees of petitioners (ad already previo*sly bro*g(t to t(e attention of t(e management t(e danger t(e co*nter co*ld ca*se. 3*t t(e latter ignored t(eir concern. T(e Co*rt of <ppeals fa*lted t(e petitioners for t(is omission, and concl*ded t(at t(e incident t(at befell K9.1N1T9 co*ld (ave been avoided (ad petitioners repaired t(e defective co*nter. .t was inconse=*ential t(at t(e co*nter (ad been in *se for some time wit(o*t a prior incident. T(e Co*rt of <ppeals declared t(at K9.1N1T9, w(o was below seven 0!2 years old at t(e time of t(e incident, was absol*tely incapable of negligence or ot(er tort. .t reasoned t(at since a c(ild *nder nine 0 2 years co*ld not be (eld liable even for an intentional wrong, t(en t(e siAyear old K9.1N1T9 co*ld not be made to acco*nt for a mere misc(ief or rec,less act. .t also absolved C8.S164< of any negligence, finding not(ing wrong or o*t of t(e ordinary in momentarily allowing K9.1N1T9 to wal, w(ile s(e signed t(e doc*ment at t(e nearby co*nter. T(e Co*rt of <ppeals also reFected t(e testimonies of t(e witnesses of petitioners. .t fo*nd t(em biased and preF*diced. .t instead gave credit to t(e testimony of disinterested witness ;on5ales. T(e Co*rt of <ppeals t(en awarded P ,4&$.%" as act*al damages, t(e amo*nt representing t(e (ospitali5ation eApenses inc*rred by private respondents as evidenced by t(e (ospital+s statement of acco*nt. H)&I .t denied an award for f*neral eApenses for lac, of proof to s*bstantiate t(e same. .nstead, a compensatory damage of P'$,$$$ was awarded for t(e deat( of K9.1N1T9. De =*ote t(e dispositive portion of t(e assailed decision, H)#I t(*sB D9181/>81, premises considered, t(e F*dgment of t(e lower co*rt is S1T <S.41 and anot(er one is entered against HpetitionersI, ordering t(em to pay Fointly and severally *nto Hprivate respondentsI t(e followingB ). P'$,$$$.$$ by way of compensatory damages for t(e deat( of K(ienet( <g*ilar, wit( legal interest 0"P p.a.2 from &! <pril ) %4E &. P ,4&$.%" as reimb*rsement for (ospitali5ation eApenses inc*rredE wit( legal interest

0"P p.a.2 from &! <pril ) %4E #. P)$$,$$$.$$ as moral and eAemplary damagesE 4. P&$,$$$.$$ in t(e concept of attorneyJs feesE and '. Costs. Private respondents so*g(t a reconsideration of t(e decision b*t t(e same was denied in t(e Co*rt of <ppealsJ resol*tionH)4I of )" 7*ly ) !. Petitioners now see, t(e reversal of t(e Co*rt of <ppealsJ decision and t(e reinstatement of t(e F*dgment of t(e trial co*rt. Petitioners primarily arg*e t(at t(e Co*rt of <ppeals erred in disregarding t(e fact*al findings and concl*sions of t(e trial co*rt. T(ey stress t(at since t(e action was based on tort, any finding of negligence on t(e part of t(e private respondents wo*ld necessarily negate t(eir claim for damages, w(ere said negligence was t(e proAimate ca*se of t(e inF*ry s*stained. T(e inF*ry in t(e instant case was t(e deat( of K9.1N1T9. T(e proAimate ca*se was K9.1N1T9Js act of clinging to t(e co*nter. T(is act in t*rn ca*sed t(e co*nter to fall on (er. T(is and C8.S164<Js contrib*tory negligence, t(ro*g( (er fail*re to provide t(e proper care and attention to (er c(ild w(ile inside t(e store, n*llified private respondentsJ claim for damages. .t is also for t(ese reasons t(at parents are made acco*ntable for t(e damage or inF*ry inflicted on ot(ers by t(eir minor c(ildren. Cnder t(ese circ*mstances, petitioners co*ld not be (eld responsible for t(e accident t(at befell K9.1N1T9. Petitioners also assail t(e credibility of ;on5ales w(o was already separated from SyvelJs at t(e time (e testifiedE (ence, (is testimony mig(t (ave been tarnis(ed by ill-feelings against t(em. /or t(eir part, private respondents principally reiterated t(eir arg*ments t(at neit(er K9.1N1T9 nor C8.S164< was negligent at any time w(ile inside t(e storeE t(e findings and concl*sions of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals are s*bstantiated by t(e evidence on recordE t(e testimony of ;on5ales, w(o (eard K9.1N1T9 comment on t(e incident w(ile s(e was in t(e (ospitalJs emergency room s(o*ld receive credenceE and finally, K9.1N1T9Js part of t(e res %estae declaration Nt(at s(e did not(ing to ca*se t(e (eavy str*ct*re to fall on (erO s(o*ld be considered as t(e correct version of t(e gr*esome events. De deny t(e petition. T(e two iss*es to be resolved areB 0)2 w(et(er t(e deat( of K9.1N1T9 was accidental or attrib*table to negligenceE and 0&2 in case of a finding of negligence, w(et(er t(e same was attrib*table to private respondents for maintaining a defective co*nter or to C8.S164< and K9.1N1T9 for failing to eAercise d*e and reasonable care w(ile inside t(e store premises. <n accident pertains to an *nforeseen event in w(ic( no fa*lt or negligence attac(es to t(e defendant.H)'I .t is Na fort*ito*s circ*mstance, event or (appeningE an event (appening wit(o*t any (*man agency, or if (appening w(olly or partly t(ro*g( (*man agency, an event w(ic( *nder t(e circ*mstances is *n*s*al or *neApected by t(e person to w(om it (appens.O H)"I >n t(e ot(er (and, negligence is t(e omission to do somet(ing w(ic( a reasonable man, g*ided by t(ose considerations w(ic( ordinarily reg*late t(e cond*ct of (*man affairs, wo*ld do, or t(e doing of somet(ing w(ic( a pr*dent and reasonable man wo*ld not do. H)!I Negligence is Nt(e fail*re to observe, for t(e protection of t(e interest of anot(er person, t(at degree of care, preca*tion and vigilance w(ic( t(e circ*mstances F*stly demand, w(ereby s*c( ot(er person s*ffers inF*ry.OH)%I <ccident and negligence are intrinsically contradictoryE one cannot eAist wit( t(e

ot(er. <ccident occ*rs w(en t(e person concerned is eAercising ordinary care, w(ic( is not ca*sed by fa*lt of any person and w(ic( co*ld not (ave been prevented by any means s*ggested by common pr*dence.H) I T(e test in determining t(e eAistence of negligence is en*nciated in t(e landmar, case of (icart '. )mith,H&$I t(*sB *id the defendant in doin% the alle%ed ne%li%ent act use that reasona!le care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would ha'e used in the same situation+ ,f not- then he is %uilty of ne%li%ence.H&)I De r*le t(at t(e tragedy w(ic( befell K9.1N1T9 was no accident and t(at K9.1N1T9Js deat( co*ld only be attrib*ted to negligence. De =*ote t(e testimony of ;erardo ;on5ales w(o was at t(e scene of t(e incident and accompanied C8.S164< and K9.1N1T9 to t(e (ospitalB Q < D(ile at t(e Ma,ati Medical Center, did yo* (ear or notice anyt(ing w(ile t(e c(ild was being treatedR <t t(e emergency room we were all s*rro*nding t(e c(ild. <nd w(en t(e doctor as,ed t(e c(ild Nw(at did yo* do,O t(e c(ild said Nnot(ing, . did not come near t(e co*nter and t(e co*nter F*st fell on me.O 0C>C8T T> <TTG. 316T8<N2 Go* want t(e words in .a%alo% to be translatedR <TTG. 316T8<N Ges, yo*r 9onor. C>C8T ;ranted. .ntercalate Nwala po- hindi po a/o lumapit doon. 0asta !uma%sa/.OH&&I T(is testimony of ;on5ales pertaining to K9.1N1T9Js statement formed 0and s(o*ld be admitted as2 part of t(e res %estae *nder Section 4&, 8*le )#$ of t(e 8*les of Co*rt, t(*sB (art of res %estae. Statements made by a person w(ile a startling occ*rrence is ta,ing place or immediately prior or s*bse=*ent t(ereto wit( respect to t(e circ*mstances t(ereof, may be given in evidence as part of t(e res %estae. So, also, statements accompanying an e=*ivocal act material to t(e iss*e, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of t(e res %estae. .t is aAiomatic t(at matters relating to declarations of pain or s*ffering and statements made to a p(ysician are generally considered declarations and admissions. H&#I <ll t(at is re=*ired for t(eir admissibility as part of t(e res %estae is t(at t(ey be made or *ttered *nder t(e infl*ence of a startling event before t(e declarant (ad t(e time to t(in, and concoct a false(ood as witnessed by t(e person w(o testified in co*rt. Cnder t(e circ*mstances t(*s described, it is *nt(in,able for K9.1N1T9, a c(ild of s*c( tender age and in eAtreme pain, to (ave lied to a doctor w(om s(e tr*sted wit( (er life. De t(erefore accord credence to ;on5alesJ testimony on t(e matter, i.e.- K9.1N1T9 performed no act t(at facilitated (er tragic deat(. Sadly, petitioners did, t(ro*g( t(eir negligence or omission to sec*re or ma,e stable t(e co*nterJs base. ;on5alesJ earlier testimony on petitionersJ insistence to ,eep and maintain t(e str*ct*rally *nstable gift-wrapping co*nter proved t(eir negligence, t(*sB Q D(en yo* ass*med t(e position as gift wrapper at t(e second floor, will yo* please describe

t(e gift wrapping co*nter, were yo* able to eAamineR < 3eca*se every morning before . start wor,ing . *sed to clean t(at co*nter and since it is not nailed and it was only standin% on the floor- it was sha/y . AAA Q < Dill yo* please describe t(e co*nter at 'B$$ oJcloc, H sicI in t(e afternoon on H sicI May ) %#R <t t(at (o*r on May , ) %#, t(at co*nter was standing beside t(e verification co*nter. And since the top of it was hea'y and considerin% that it was not nailed- it can collapse at anytime- since the top is hea'y. <nd w(at did yo* doR , informed Mr. Maat a!out that counter which is HsicI sha/y and since Mr. Maat is fond of p*tting display decorations on tables, (e even told me t(at . wo*ld p*t some decorations. 0ut since , told him that it not HsicI nailed and it is sha/y he told me 1!etter inform also the company a!out it.2 And since the company did not do anythin% a!out the counter- so , also did not do anythin% a!out the counter. H&4I H1mp(asis s*ppliedI Dill yo* please described HsicI to t(e (onorable Co*rt t(e co*nter w(ere yo* were assigned in 7an*ary ) %#R T(at co*nter assigned to me was w(en my s*pervisor ordered me to carry t(at co*nter to anot(er place. , told him that the counter needs nailin% and it has to !e nailed !ecause it mi%ht cause in3ury or accident to another since it was sha/y. D(en t(at gift wrapping co*nter was transferred at t(e second floor on /ebr*ary )&, ) %#, will yo* please describe t(at to t(e (onorable Co*rtR , told her that the counter wrapper HsicI is really in %ood HsicI condition4 it was sha/y. , told her that we had to nail it. D(en yo* said s(e, to w(om are yo* referring to H sicIR . am referring to Ms. Panelo, sir. <nd w(at was t(e answer of Ms. Panelo w(en yo* told (er t(at t(e co*nter was s(a,yR S(e told me ND(y do yo* (ave to teac( me. Go* are only my s*bordinate and yo* are to teac( meRO <nd s(e even got angry at me w(en . told (er t(at. /rom /ebr*ary )&, ) %# *p to May , ) %#, w(at if any, did Ms. Panelo or any employee of t(e management do to t(at 0sic2

AAA Q <

8amon ;*evarra, anot(er former employee, corroborated t(e testimony of ;on5ales, t(*sB Q AAA <

Q < Q < Q < AAA Q AAA

DitnessB None, sir. .hey ne'er nailed the counter. .hey only nailed the counter after the

accident happened.H&'I H1mp(asis s*ppliedI Dit(o*t do*bt, petitioner Panelo and anot(er store s*pervisor were personally informed of t(e danger posed by t(e *nstable co*nter. Get, neit(er initiated any concrete action to remedy t(e sit*ation nor ens*re t(e safety of t(e storeJs employees and patrons as a reasonable and ordinary pr*dent man wo*ld (ave done. T(*s, as confronted by t(e sit*ation petitioners miserably failed to disc(arge t(e d*e diligence re=*ired of a good fat(er of a family. >n t(e iss*e of t(e credibility of ;on5ales and ;*evarra, petitioners failed to establis( t(at t(e formerJs testimonies were biased and tainted wit( partiality. T(erefore, t(e allegation t(at ;on5ales and ;*evarraJs testimonies were blemis(ed by Nill feelingsO against petitioners S since t(ey 0;on5ales and ;*evarra2 were already separated from t(e company at t(e time t(eir testimonies were offered in co*rt S was b*t mere spec*lation and deserved scant consideration. .t is settled t(at w(en t(e iss*e concerns t(e credibility of witnesses, t(e appellate co*rts will not as a general r*le dist*rb t(e findings of t(e trial co*rt, w(ic( is in a better position to determine t(e same. T(e trial co*rt (as t(e distinct advantage of act*ally (earing t(e testimony of and observing t(e deportment of t(e witnesses. H&"I 9owever, t(e r*le admits of eAceptions s*c( as w(en its eval*ation was reac(ed arbitrarily or it overloo,ed or failed to appreciate some facts or circ*mstances of weig(t and s*bstance w(ic( co*ld affect t(e res*lt of t(e case. H&!I .n t(e instant case, petitioners failed to bring t(eir claim wit(in t(e eAception. <nent t(e negligence imp*ted to K9.1N1T9, we apply t(e concl*sive pres*mption t(at favors c(ildren below nine 0 2 years old in t(at t(ey are incapable of contrib*tory negligence. .n (is boo,,H&%I former 7*dge Ce5ar S. Sangco statedB .n o*r F*risdiction, a person *nder nine years of age is concl*sively pres*med to (ave acted wit(o*t discernment, and is, on t(at acco*nt, eAempt from criminal liability. T(e same pres*mption and a li,e eAemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and *nder fifteen years of age, *nless it is s(own t(at (e (as acted wit( discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a =*asi-delict and re=*ired discernment as a condition of liability, eit(er criminal or civil, a c(ild *nder nine years of age is, by analogy, concl*sively pres*med to be incapable of negligenceE and t(at t(e pres*mption of lac, of discernment or incapacity for negligence in t(e case of a c(ild over nine b*t *nder fifteen years of age is a reb*ttable one, *nder o*r law. .he rule- therefore- is that a child under nine years of a%e must !e conclusi'ely presumed incapa!le of contri!utory ne%li%ence as a matter of law. H1mp(asis s*ppliedI 1ven if we attrib*te contrib*tory negligence to K9.1N1T9 and ass*me t(at s(e climbed over t(e co*nter, no inF*ry s(o*ld (ave occ*rred if we accept petitionersJ t(eory t(at t(e co*nter was stable and st*rdy. /or if t(at was t(e tr*t(, a frail siA-year old co*ld not (ave ca*sed t(e co*nter to collapse. T(e p(ysical analysis of t(e co*nter by bot( t(e trial co*rt and Co*rt of <ppeals and a scr*tiny of t(e evidence H& Ion record reveal ot(erwise, i.e., it was not d*rable after all. S(aped li,e an inverted N6,O t(e co*nter was (eavy, (*ge, and its top laden wit( formica. .t protr*ded towards t(e c*stomer waiting area and its base was not sec*red. H#$I C8.S164< too, s(o*ld be absolved from any contrib*tory negligence. .nitially, K9.1N1T9 (eld on to C8.S164<Js waist, later to t(e latterJs (and. H#)IC8.S164< momentarily released t(e c(ildJs (and from (er cl*tc( w(en s(e signed (er credit card slip. <t t(is precise moment, it was reasonable and *s*al for C8.S164< to let go of (er c(ild. /*rt(er, at t(e time K9.1N1T9 was pinned down by t(e co*nter, s(e was F*st a foot away from (er mot(erE and t(e gift-wrapping co*nter was F*st fo*r meters away from C8.S164<. H#&I T(e time and distance were bot( significant. K9.1N1T9 was near (er mot(er and did not loiter as petitioners wo*ld want to

impress *pon *s. S(e even admitted to t(e doctor w(o treated (er at t(e (ospital t(at s(e did not do anyt(ingE t(e co*nter F*st fell on (er. 4*EREFORE, in view of all t(e foregoing, t(e instant petition is 41N.14 and t(e c(allenged decision of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals of )! 7*ne ) " in C.<. ;.8. No. CV #! #! is (ereby <//.8M14. Costs against petitioners. SO OR$ERE$.

*I$A"#O ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. #UI""ER!O &A"AN$AN #.R. No. "5%( &EN#3ON, J.8 T(is is an appeal by certiorari, from a decision of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals re=*iring 9idalgo 1nterprises, .nc. to pay ;*illermo 3alandan and (is wife, damages in t(e s*m of P&,$$$ for t(e deat( of t(eir son Mario. .t appears t(at t(e petitioner 9idalgo 1nterprises, .nc. @was t(e owner of an ice-plant factory in t(e . '6ne 1%, 10+

City of San Pablo, 6ag*na, in w(ose premises were installed two tan,s f*ll of water, nine feet deep, for cooling p*rposes of its engine. D(ile t(e factory compo*nd was s*rro*nded wit( fence, t(e tan,s t(emselves were not provided wit( any ,ind of fence or top covers. T(e edges of t(e tan,s were barely a foot (ig( from t(e s*rface of t(e gro*nd. T(ro*g( t(e wide gate entrance, w(ic( is contin*ally open, motor ve(icles (a*ling ice and persons b*ying said commodity passed, and any one co*ld easily enter t(e said factory, as (e pleased. T(ere was no g*ard assigned on t(e gate. <t abo*t noon of <pril )", ) 4%, plaintiff+s son, Mario 3alandan, a boy barely % years old, w(ile playing wit( and in company of ot(er boys of (is age entered t(e factory premises t(ro*g( t(e gate, to ta,e a bat( in one of said tan,sE and w(ile t(*s bat(ing, Mario san, to t(e bottom of t(e tan,, only to be fis(ed o*t later, already a cadaver, (aving been died of @asp(yAia secondary to drowning.@ T(e Co*rt of <ppeals, and t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of 6ag*na, too, t(e view t(at t(e petitioner maintained an attractive n*isance 0t(e tan,s2, and neglected to adopt t(e necessary preca*tions to avoid accidents to persons entering its premises. .t applied t(e doctrine of attractive n*isance, of <merican origin, recogni5ed in t(is 7*risdiction in .aylor 's. Manila Electric )" P(il., %. T(e doctrine may be stated, in s(ort, as followsB >ne w(o maintains on (is premises dangero*s instr*mentalities or appliances of a c(aracter li,ely to attract c(ildren in play, and w(o fails to eAercise ordinary care to prevent c(ildren from playing t(erewit( or resorting t(ereto, is liable to a c(ild of tender years w(o is inF*red t(ereby, even if t(e c(ild is tec(nically a trespasser in t(e premises. 0)ee "' C.7.S., p. 4''.2 T(e principle reason for t(e doctrine is t(at t(e condition or appliance in =*estion alt(o*g( its danger is apparent to t(ose of age, is so enticing or all*ring to c(ildren of tender years as to ind*ce t(em to approac(, get on or *se it, and t(is attractiveness is an implied invitation to s*c( c(ildren 0"' C.7.S., p. 4'%2. Now, is a swimming pool or water tan, an instr*mentality or appliance li,ely to attract t(e little c(ildren in playR .n ot(er words is t(e body of water an attractive n*isanceR T(e great maFority of <merican decisions say no. T(e attractive n*isance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as nat*ral, in t(e absence of some *n*s*al condition or artificial feat*re ot(er t(an t(e mere water and its location. T(ere are n*mero*s cases in w(ic( t(e attractive n*isance doctrine (as not been (eld not to be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of water, streams, canals, dams, ditc(es, c*lverts, drains, cesspools or sewer pools, . . . 0"' C.7.S., p. 4!" et seg. citing decisions of California, ;eorgia, .da(o, .llinois, Kansas, .owa, 6o*isiana, Miss., Misso*ri, Montana, >,la(oma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, TeAas, Nebras,a, Disconsin.2 .n fairness to t(e Co*rt of <ppeals it s(o*ld be stated t(at t(e above vol*me of Corp*s 7*ris Sec*nd*m was p*blis(ed in ) '$, w(ereas its decision was prom*lgated on September #$, ) 4 . T(e reason w(y a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered an attractive n*isance was l*cidly eAplained by t(e .ndiana <ppellate Co*rt as followsB Nat*re (as created streams, la,es and pools w(ic( attract c(ildren. 6*r,ing in t(eir waters is always t(e danger of drowning. <gainst t(is danger c(ildren are early instr*cted so t(at t(ey

are s*fficiently pres*med to ,now t(e dangerE and if t(e owner of private property creates an artificial pool on (is own property, merely d*plicating t(e wor, of nat*re wit(o*t adding any new danger, . . . 0(e2 is not liable beca*se of (aving created an @attractive n*isance.@ <nderson vs. 8eit(-8iley Const. Co., N. 1., &nd, )%4, )%'E ))& .nd. <pp., )!$. T(erefore, as petitioner+s tan,s are not classified as attractive n*isance, t(e =*estion w(et(er t(e petitioner (ad ta,en reasonable preca*tions becomes immaterial. <nd t(e ot(er iss*e s*bmitted by petitioner ? t(at t(e parents of t(e boy were g*ilty of contrib*tory negligence precl*ding recovery, beca*se t(ey left for Manila on t(at *nl*c,y day leaving t(eir son *nder t(e care of no responsible individ*al ? needs no f*rt(er disc*ssion. T(e appealed decision is reversed and t(e 9idalgo 1nterprises, .nc. is absolved from liability. No costs.

RTC 'U$#E CA!I"O E. TA!IN vs. COURT OF APPEA"S

#.R. No. 0-(-- !a7 ., 100

#UTIERRE3, 'R., J.: T(e present petition see,s to ann*l and set aside t(e decision and resol*tion dated 7an*ary &), ) ) and /ebr*ary &$, ) ), respectively of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals w(ic( declared as n*ll and void t(e >ctober )$, ) ) order of t(e petitioner 7*dge in a civil case @for eFectment wit( preliminary inF*nction and damages@ filed by petitioner m*nicipality against t(e private respondents granting t(e petitioner m*nicipality+s motion for a writ of possession and t(e writ iss*ed p*rs*ant to it. >n September &4, ) $, petitioner m*nicipality represented by its mayor 4omiciano 1. 8eal filed wit( t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt of Kamboanga del S*r, 3ranc( &#, Molave, presided by t(e petitioner 7*dge, a complaint denominated as @1Fectment wit( Preliminary .nF*nction and 4amages@ against respondents Vicente Medina and /ort*nata 8osellon. T(e complaint alleged t(at t(e plaintiff 0petitioner m*nicipality (erein2 is t(e owner of a parcel of residential land located at Poblacion, 4*mingag, Kamboanga del S*r wit( an area of ',% 4 s=*are meters more or lessE t(at t(e parcel of land was reserved for p*blic pla5a *nder Presidential Proclamation No. #"' dated Marc( )', ) "%E t(at d*ring t(e inc*mbency of t(e late Mayor .sidoro 1. 8eal, Sr. or in ) '%, t(e m*nicipality leased an <rea of ),#'$ s=*are meters to t(e defendants 0respondents (erein2 s*bFect to t(e condition t(at t(ey s(o*ld vacate t(e place in case it is needed for p*blic p*rposesE t(at t(e defendants religio*sly paid t(e rentals *ntil ) "!E t(at t(ereafter, t(e defendants ref*sed to pay t(e rentalsE t(at t(e inc*mbent mayor discovered t(at t(e defendants

filed a @Cadastral <nswer@ over said lotE t(at t(e defendants ref*sed to vacate t(e place despite efforts of t(e m*nicipalityE t(at t(e national government (ad alloted an appropriation for t(e constr*ction of a m*nicipal gymnasi*m wit(in t(e p*blic pla5a b*t t(e said constr*ction w(ic( was already started co*ld not contin*e beca*se of t(e presence of t(e b*ildings constr*cted by t(e defendantsE t(at t(e appropriation for t(e constr*ction of t(e gymnasi*m mig(t be reverted bac, to t(e national government w(ic( wo*ld res*lt to @irreparable damage, inF*ry and preF*dice@ to t(e m*nicipality and its people w(o are eApected to derive benefit from t(e accomplis(ment of t(e proFect. T(e complaint prayedB ). T(at a restraining order s(all be iss*ed immediately after t(e filing of t(is caseE &. T(at after d*e notice and (earing, a writ of preliminary mandatory inF*nction s(all be iss*ed against t(e (erein defendants for t(em 0 sic2 form f*rt(er occ*pying t(e leased portion to t(em 0sic2, andLor t(at a Drit of Possession be immediately iss*ed to preserve t(e rig(ts of t(e (erein plaintiffE #. T(at F*dgment s(o*ld be entered against t(e (erein defendants to vacate t(e premises of t(e leased portion given to t(em. 0C< Rollo, pp. ))-)&2 >n t(e same day, September &4, ) $, t(e petitioner 7*dge iss*ed an order setting t(e preliminary (earing for t(e iss*ance of a writ of preliminary mandatory inF*nction andLor writ of possession on >ctober )$, ) $. .nstead of filing an answer, t(e respondents filed a motion to dismiss alleging t(e lac, of F*risdiction of t(e trial co*rt, since t(e complaint is for illegal detainer w(ic( is wit(in t(e original F*risdiction of t(e m*nicipal co*rt and t(e pendency of a cadastral case 0Cadastral Case No. N-)$, 68C Cad. 8ec. No. N-)$%, 6ot 4%) HPls-")I TS-&)%2 between t(e parties over t(e owners(ip of t(e same parcel of land. >n >ctober )$, ) $, t(e petitioner 7*dge iss*ed two 0&2 orders. T(e first order denied t(e motion to dismiss. T(e second order granted t(e petitioner m*nicipality+s motion for a writ of possession @wit( t(e ancillary writ of demolition to place in possession t(e plaintiff on t(e land s*bFect of t(is case, to t(e end t(at t(e p*blic constr*ction t(ereon will not be Feopardi5ed.@ 0C< Rollo, p. &&2 .n denying t(e motion to dismiss, t(e petitioner 7*dge saidB AAA AAA AAA &. .n t(e complaint, t(e plaintiff alleges t(at t(e defendant is claiming owners(ip over t(e land w(ic( was previo*sly rented to defendant by t(e plaintiff m*nicipality. T(is action is, t(erefore, clearly anaccion de rei'indicacion, a real action wit(in t(e F*risdiction of t(is co*rt. #. <s t(e complaint is for recovery of owners(ip of t(e land not to enforce t(e contract, t(e Stat*te of /ra*d does not apply. 4. T(e land s*bFect of t(is case is covered by P.4. No. #"', wit(drawing t(is land from sale of settlement and reserving t(e same for sc(ool site p*rposes *nder t(e

administration of t(e 4irector of P*blic Sc(ool and p*blic pla5a *nder t(e administration of t(e M*nicipality of 4*mingag, t(erefore t(e Cadastral co*rt (as no F*risdiction over t(e land involved in t(is case. 0C< Rollo, p. &$2 T(e petitioner 7*dge F*stified (is granting t(e motion for a writ of possession wit( t(e ancillary writ of demolition by applying t(e r*le an eminent domain 08*le "! of t(e 8evised 8*les of Co*rt, erroneo*sly referred to as 8*le "%2 in analogy in t(at *nder t(is 8*le t(e complainant is given t(e rig(t to t(e writ of possession in order t(at p*blic constr*ction and proFects will not be delayed. <ccording to t(e petitioner 7*dge, t(e necessity of a writ of possession is greater in t(e instant case considering t(at t(e parcel of land is covered by a Presidential Proclamation and t(e on-going constr*ction t(ereon is being endangered to be left *nfinis(ed on acco*nt of t(e b*ildings standing on t(e parcel of land beca*se t(e appropriation for t(e constr*ction mig(t be reverted bac, to t(e national treas*ry. T(e private respondents filed an omnib*s motion for reconsideration wit( motion to set aside order and to =*as( writ of possession and demolition b*t t(is was denied in an order dated >ctober ) , ) $. >n >ctober ) , ) $, t(e petitioner m*nicipality implemented t(e writ of possession and ancillary writ of demolition iss*ed by t(e petitioner 7*dge res*lting in t(e dispossession of t(e private respondents from t(e parcel of land and t(e demolition of str*ct*res and b*ildings t(ereon owned by t(e respondents. >n >ctober &#, ) $, t(e private respondents filed t(eir answer to t(e complaint alleging t(erein t(at t(e s*bFect parcel of land (as been owned, occ*pied and possess by respondent Vicente Medina since ) 4! w(en (e bo*g(t t(e s*bFect parcel from a S*banan nativeE t(at t(e ot(er respondent /ort*nata 8osellon leased from Medina a portion of t(e parcel of landE t(at t(e respondents were never lessees of t(e petitioner m*nicipalityE t(at Proclamation No-#"' iss*ed on Marc( )', ) "% recogni5ed @private rig(ts@E and, t(at a case is pending before t(e Cadastral co*rt between respondent Medina and petitioner m*nicipality as regards t(e owners(ip of t(e s*bFect parcel of land. 3efore t(e petitioner 7*dge co*ld f*rt(er act on t(e case, t(e private respondents filed a petition for certiorari wit( t(e Co*rt of <ppeals =*estioning t(e >ctober )$ and >ctober ) , ) $ orders of t(e petitioner 7*dge. .n a resol*tion dated November )4, ) $, t(e petition was given d*e co*rse and a temporary restraining order was iss*ed enFoining t(e petitioner 7*dge from proceeding wit( t(e (earing of t(e case and from enforcing t(e >ctober )$, and ) , ) $ orders. >n 7an*ary &), ) $, t(e appellate co*rt rendered t(e =*estioned decision. < motion for reconsideration was denied in a resol*tion dated /ebr*ary &$, ) ). 9ence, t(is petition. .n a resol*tion dated November &", ) ), we gave d*e co*rse to t(e petition.

T(e appellate co*rt rig(tf*lly *p(eld t(e F*risdiction of t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt over t(e case based on t(e allegations in t(e complaint. T(e allegations and not t(e title control t(e ca*se of action of t(e complaint. 0<ndamo v. .ntermediate <ppellate Co*rt, ) ) SC8< ) ' H) $I2.

T(e Co*rt saidB /irst, 4oes t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt (ave F*risdiction over t(e case bro*g(t by t(e M*nicipality of 4imangagR <s already noted, t(e gist of t(e complaint below is t(at t(e land in =*estion is part of t(e p*blic domain w(ic( t(e President of t(e P(ilippines, *nder Proclamation No. #"', dated Marc( &', 0s(o*ld be )'2 ) "%, reserved for sc(ool site and p*blic pla5a in t(e M*nicipality of 4*mingag and t(at t(e petitioners, to w(om t(e former town mayor (ad leased a part of t(e land, ref*sed to vacate and to pay rents. .f t(is is t(e t(eory on w(ic( t(e complaint is based, t(en t(e action may really be considered one for recovery of possession. /or t(o*g( a lease is alleged, t(e lease wo*ld be void and t(e m*nicipality co*ld recover t(e possession of t(e land. T(is is t(e teac(ing of t(e leading case of Municipality of 5a'ite '. Ro3as, #$ P(il. "$& H) )'I in w(ic( it was (eld t(at t(e lease by a m*nicipal corporation of a p*blic pla5a is n*ll and void beca*se land for p*blic *se is o*tside t(e commerce of man and, t(erefore, t(e lessee m*st restore possession of t(e land by vacating it. <s in t(is case, in t(e 8oFas case t(e action was for recovery of possession instit*ted in t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance, t(e co*nterpart of w(ic( at present is t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt. De, t(erefore, (old t(at t(e respondent F*dge (as F*risdiction of t(e case bro*g(t against petitioners for recovery of possession of w(at is alleged to be land for p*blic *se of t(e respondent m*nicipality. 0C< Rollo, pp. '#-'42 Prescinding from t(e finding t(at t(e complaint is for reco'ery of possession t(e appellate co*rt concl*ded t(at t(e trial co*rt did not (ave a*t(ority to iss*e a writ of possession and a writ of demolition citing t(e case of Ma!ale '.Apaliso/ 0%% SC8< &#4 H) ! I2, to witB .n t(at connection, it s(o*ld be borne in mind t(at t(e law specifies w(en a writ of possession may be iss*ed. T(at writ is available 0)2 in a land registration proceeding, w(ic( is a proceeding in rem 0Sec. )!, <ct No. 4 "E 1stipona v. Navarro, " SC8< &%', & )2E 0&2 in an eAtra-F*dicial foreclos*re of a realty mortgage 0Sec. !, <ct No. #)#'2E 0#2 in a F*dicial foreclos*re of mortgage, a quasi in remproceeding, provided t(at t(e mortgagor is in possession of t(e mortgaged realty and no t(ird person, not party to t(e foreclos*re s*it, (ad intervened 08ivera v. Co*rt of /irst .nstance of N*eva 1ciFa and 8*pac, ") P(il. &$)E 8amos v. Ma:alac and 6ope5, % P(il. &!$, &!'2 and 042 in eAec*tion sales 0last par. of sec. #', 8*le # , 8*les of Co*rt2. T(e appellate co*rt also r*led t(at t(e trial co*rt committed an error w(en it applied by analogy t(e r*le on eminent domain 08*le "!, 8evised 8*les of Co*rt2 to F*stify t(e iss*ance of t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition. T(e appellate co*rt pointed o*t t(at *nder t(is r*leB AAA AAA AAA . . . 0i2 T(ere is clear stat*tory a*t(ority for t(e ta,ing of possession by t(e government and 0ii2 T(e a*t(ority is premised on t(e government depositing t(e val*e of t(e land to be ta,en. /or *nless t(e ta,ing of t(e land is done *nder t(ese conditions, t(e ta,ing wo*ld constit*te deprivation of property wit(o*t d*e process of law w(ic( t(e Constit*tion pro(ibits. 0See Manila 8ailroad Co. v. Paredes, #) P(il. ))% H) )'I2 0C< Rollo, p. ''2 T(e appellate co*rt t(en statedB

.n t(e case at bar, t(ere is neit(er stat*tory a*t(ority for t(e trial co*rt+s action nor bond given to compensate t(e petitioners for t(e deprivation of t(eir possession and t(e destr*ction of t(eir (o*ses if it t*rns o*t t(at t(e land belongs to t(em. /or t(is reason, we t(in, t(e trial co*rts order is arbitrary and void. /or t(e fact is t(at petitioners claim owners(ip of t(e land in =*estion and *ntil t(at =*estion is resolved eit(er in t(e case pending before t(e respondent F*dge or in t(e cadastral proceeding, it wo*ld be *nF*st to deprive petitioners of its possession. 0C< Rollo, pp. ''-'"2 T(e petitioners now contend t(at t(e allegations in t(e complaint constit*te a ca*se of action for abatement of p*blic n*isance *nder <rticle " 4 of t(e Civil Code. >n t(e basis of t(is proposition, t(e petitioners assert t(at petitioner m*nicipality is entitled to t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition. <rticle " 4 of t(e Civil Code defines n*isance as followsB <rt. " 4. < n*isance is any act, omission, establis(ment, b*siness, condition of property or anyt(ing else w(ic(B AAA AAA AAA 0'2 9inders or impairs t(e *se of property. w(ile <rticle " ' providesB <rt. " ' N*isance is eit(er p*blic or private. < p*blic n*isance affects a comm*nity or neig(bor(ood or any considerable n*mber of persons, alt(o*g( t(e eAtent of t(e annoyance, danger or damage *pon individ*als may be *ne=*al. . . . <pplying t(ese criteria, we agree wit( t(e petitioners t(at t(e complaint alleges fact*al circ*mstances of a complaint for abatement of p*blic n*isance. T(*s, t(e complaint statesB t(at petitioner m*nicipality is t(e owner of a parcel of land covered by Presidential Proclamation No #"' w(ic( is reserved for a p*blic pla5aE t(at t(e private respondents by virt*e of a contract of lease entered into by t(e former mayor occ*pied a portion of t(e parcel of land constr*cting b*ildings t(ereonE t(at t(e private respondents ref*sed to vacate t(e premises despite demandsE t(at t(e m*nicipality is constr*cting a m*nicipal gymnasi*m in t(e area financed by appropriationsprovided by t(e national governmentE and t(at t(e appropriations are in danger of being reverted to t(e national treas*ry beca*se t(e constr*ction (ad to be stopped in view of t(e ref*sal of t(e private respondents to vacate t(e area. T(e iss*e, (owever, is not t(e nat*re of t(e ca*se of action alleged in t(e complaint. T(e more important =*estion is w(et(er or not t(e petitioner m*nicipality is entitled to a writ of possession and a writ of demolition even before t(e trial of t(e case starts. <rticle " of t(e Civil Code provides for t(e following remedies against a p*blic n*isanceB 0)2 < prosec*tion *nder t(e Penal Code or any local ordinanceE or 0&2 < civil actionE or

0#2 <batement, wit(o*t F*dicial proceedings. T(e petitioner m*nicipality (ad t(ree remedies from w(ic( to select its ca*se of action. .t c(ose to file a civil action for t(e recovery of possession of t(e parcel of land occ*pied by t(e private respondents. >bvio*sly, petitioner m*nicipality was aware t(at *nder t(e t(en 6ocal ;overnment Code 03.P. 3lg. ##!2 t(e Sangg*niang 3ayan (as to first pass an ordinance before t(e m*nicipality may s*mmarily abate a p*blic n*isance. 0Sec. )4 052 0ee2. >n t(e premise t(at t(e parcel of land forms part of a p*blic pla5a, t(e petitioners now contend t(at t(e 7*dge was F*stified in iss*ing t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition. < p*blic pla5a is o*tside t(e commerce of man and constr*ctions t(ereon can be abated s*mmarily by t(e m*nicipality. De r*led in t(e case of 6illanue'a '. 5astaeda- 7r. 0)'4 SC8< )4& H) %!I2B 1Aactly in point is 1spirit* v. M*nicipal Co*ncil of Po5orr*bio, 0)$& P(il. %" -%!$2 w(ere t(e S*preme Co*rt declaredB T(ere is absol*tely no =*estion t(at t(e town pla5a cannot be *sed for t(e constr*ction of mar,et stalls, specially of residences, and t(at s*c( str*ct*res constit*te a n*isance s*bFect to abatement according to law. Town pla5as are properties of p*blic dominion, to be devoted to p*blic *se and to be made available to t(e p*blic in general. T(ey are o*tside t(e commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by t(e m*nicipality to private parties. <pplying t(is well-settled doctrine, we r*le t(at petitioners (ad no rig(t in t(e first place to occ*py t(e disp*ted premises and cannot insist in remaining t(ere now on t(e strengt( of t(eir alleged lease contracts. T(ey s(o*ld (ave reali5ed and accepted t(is earlier, considering t(at even before Civil Case No. &$4$ was decided, t(e m*nicipal co*ncil of San /ernando (ad already adopted 8esol*tion No. & , series of ) "4, declaring t(is area as t(e par,ing place and p*blic pla5a of t(e m*nicipality. .t is t(e decision in Civil Case No. &$4$ and t(e said resol*tion of t(e m*nicipal co*ncil of San /ernando t(at respondent Macalino was see,ing to enforce w(en (e ordered t(e demolition of t(e stalls constr*cted in t(e disp*ted area. <s officer-inc(arge of t(e office of t(e mayor, (e (ad t(e d*ty to clear t(e area and restore it to its intended *se as a par,ing place and p*blic pla5a of t(e m*nicipality of San /ernando, conformably to t(e aforementioned orders from t(e co*rt and t(e co*ncil. .t is, t(erefore, not correct to say t(at (e (ad acted wit(o*t a*t(ority or ta,en t(e law into (is (ands in iss*ing (is order. AAA AAA AAA T(e Co*rt observes t(at even wit(o*t s*c( investigatiom and recommendation, t(e respondent mayor was F*stified in ordering t(e area cleared on t(e strengt( alone of its stat*s as a p*blic pla5a as declared by t(e F*dicial and legislative a*t(orities. . . . .f, t(erefore, t(e allegations in t(e complaint are tr*e and t(at t(e parcel of land being occ*pied by t(e private respondents is indeed a p*blic pla5a, t(en t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition wo*ld (ave been F*stified. .n fact, *nder s*c( circ*mstances, t(ere wo*ld (ave been no need for a

writ of possession in favor of t(e petitioner m*nicipality since t(e private respondents+ occ*pation over t(e s*bFect parcel of land can not be recogni5ed by any law. < writ of demolition wo*ld (ave been s*fficient to eFect t(e private respondents. 9owever, not only did t(e m*nicipality avoid t(e *se of abatement wit(o*t F*dicial proceedings, b*t t(e stat*s of t(e s*bFect parcel of land (as yet to be decided. De (ave to consider t(e fact t(at Proclamation No. #"' dated Marc( )', ) "% recogni5es private rig(ts w(ic( may (ave been vested on ot(er persons, to witB 3G T91 P81S.41NT P8>C6<M<T.>N N>. #"' >/ T91 P9.6.PP.N1S

81S18V.N; />8 SC9>>6 S.T1, PC36.C P6<K< <N4 P6<G;8>CN4 PC8P>S1S C18T<.N P<8C16S >/ 6<N4 >/ T91 PC36.C 4>M<.N S.TC<T14 .N T91 MCN.C.P<6.TG >/ 4CM.N;<;, P8>V.NC1 >/ K<M3><N;< 416 SC8, .S6<N4 >/ M.N4<N<>. Cpon recommendation of t(e Secretary of <gric*lt*re and Nat*ral 8eso*rces and p*rs*ant to t(e a*t(ority vested in me by law, . /184.N<N4 1. M<8C>S, P81S.41NT >/ T91 P9.6.PP.N1S, do (ereby wit(draw from sale or settlement and *nder t(e administration of t(e 4irector of P*blic Sc(ools administration of t(e M*nicipal ;overnment of 4*mingag, su!3ect to pri'ate ri%hts- if any there !e , certain parcels of land of t(e p*blic domain sit*ated in t(e M*nicipality of 4*mingag, Province of Kamboanga del S*r, .sland of Mindanao, . . . 0C< Rollo, pp. 4)-< ? 4&2 01mp(asis s*pplied2. .t is to be noted t(at even before t(e Proclamation, t(e parcel of land was t(e s*bFect of cadastral proceedings before anot(er branc( of t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt of Kamboanga del S*r. <t t(e time of t(e filing of t(e instant case, t(e cadastral proceedings intended to settle t(e owners(ip over t(e =*estioned portion of t(e parcel of land *nder Proclamation No. #"' were still pending. >ne of t(e claimants in t(e cadastral proceedings is private respondent Vicente Medina w(o traced (is owners(ip over t(e s*bFect parcel of land as far bac, as ) 4! w(en (e allegedly bo*g(t t(e same from a S*banan native. Cnder t(e cadastral system, t(e government t(ro*g( t(e 4irector of 6ands initiates t(e proceedings by filing a petition in co*rt after w(ic( all owners or claimants are compelled to act and present t(eir answers ot(erwise t(ey lose t(eir rig(t to t(eir own property. T(e p*rpose is to serve t(e p*blic interests by re=*iring t(at t(e titles to any lands @be settled and adF*dicated.@ 0Section ) Cadastral <ct HNo. &&' #I ;overnment of t(e P(ilippine .slands v. <b*ral, # P(il. " H) ) I. .t is a proceeding in rem somew(at a,in to a F*dicial in=*iry and investigation leading to a F*dicial decree. 04irector of 6ands v. 8oman <rc(bis(op of Manila, 4) P(il. )&$ H) &$I2 Considering t(erefore, t(e nat*re and p*rpose of t(e Cadastral proceedings, t(e o*tcome of said proceedings becomes a preF*dicial =*estion w(ic( m*st be addressed in t(e resol*tion of t(e instant case. De apply by analogy t(e r*ling in t(e case of 8uiam!ao '. 9sorio 0)'% SC8< "!4 H) %%I2, to witB T(e instant controversy boils down to t(e sole =*estion of w(et(er or not t(e administrative case between t(e private parties involving t(e lot s*bFect matter of t(e

eFectment case constit*tes a preF*dicial =*estion w(ic( wo*ld operate as a bar to said eFectment case. < preF*dicial =*estion is *nderstood in law to be t(at w(ic( arises in a case t(e resol*tion of w(ic( is a logical antecedent of t(e iss*e involved in said case and t(e cogni5ance of w(ic( pertains to anot(er trib*nal. 0Kapanta v. Montesa, 4 SC8< ')$ H) "&IE People v. <ragon, '$ >.;. No. )$, 4%"#2 T(e doctrine of preF*dicial =*estion comes as in to play generally in a sit*ation w(ere civil and criminal actions are pending and t(e iss*es involved in bat( cases are similar or so closely-related t(at an iss*e m*st be pre-emptively resolved in t(e civil case before t(e criminal action can proceed. T(*s, t(e eAistence it a preF*dicial =*estion in a civil case is alleged in t(e criminal case to ca*se t(e s*spension of t(e latter pending final determination of t(e former. T(e essential elements of a preF*dicial =*estion as provided *nder Section ', 8*le ))) of t(e 8evised 8*les of Co*rt areaB HaI t(e civil action involves an iss*e similar or intimately related to t(e iss*e in t(e criminal actionE and HbI t(e resol*tion of s*c( iss*e determines w(et(er or not t(e criminal action may proceed. T(e actions involved in t(e case at bar being respectively civil and administrative in c(aracter, it is obvio*s t(at tec(nically, t(ere is no preF*dicial =*estion to spea, of. 1=*ally apparent, (owever, is t(e intimate correlation between said two H&I proceedings, stemming from t(e fact t(at t(e rig(t of private respondents to eFect petitioner from t(e disp*ted portion depends primarily on t(e resol*tion of t(e pending administrative case. /or w(ile it may be tr*e t(at private respondents (ad prior possession of t(e lot in =*estion, at t(e time of t(e instit*tion of t(e eFectment case, s*c( rig(t of possession (ad been terminated, or at t(e very least, s*spended by t(e cancellation by t(e 6and <*t(ority of t(e <greement to Sell eAec*ted in t(eir favor. D(et(er or not private respondents can contin*e to eAercise t(eir rig(t of possession is b*t a necessary, logical conse=*ence of t(e iss*e involved in t(e pending administrative case assailing t(e validity of t(e cancellation of t(e <greement to Sell and t(e s*bse=*ent award of t(e disp*ted portion to petitioner. .f t(e cancellation of t(e agreement, to Sell and t(e s*bse=*ent award to petitioner are voided, t(en private respondent+s rig(t of possession is lost and so wo*ld t(eir rig(t to eFect petitioner from said portion. /aced wit( t(ese distinct possibilities, t(e more pr*dent co*rse for t(e trial co*rt to (ave ta,en is to (old t(e eFectment proceedings in abeyance *ntil after a determination of t(e administrative case. .ndeed, logic and pragmatism, if not F*rispr*dence, dictate s*c( move. To allow t(e parties to *ndergo trial notwit(standing t(e possibility of petitioner+s rig(t of possession being *p(eld in t(e pending administrative case is to needlessly re=*ire not only t(e parties b*t t(e co*rt as well to eApend time, effort in w(at may t*rn o*t to be a s(eer eAercise in f*tility. T(*s, ) <m 7*r &d tells *sB T(e co*rt in w(ic( an action is pending may, in t(e eAercise of a so*nd discretion, *pon proper application for a stay of t(at action, (old t(e action in abeyance to abide t(e o*tcome of anot(er pending in anot(er co*rt, especially w(ere t(e parties and t(e iss*es are t(e same, for t(ere

is power in(erent in every co*rt to control t(e disposition of ca*ses an its doc,ets wit( economy of time and effort for itself, for co*nsel, and for litigants. D(ere t(e rig(ts of parties in t(e record action cannot be properly determined *ntil t(e =*estions raised in t(e first action are settled t(e second action s(o*ld be stayed. D(ile t(is r*le is properly applicable to instances involving two H&I co*rt actions, t(e eAistence in t(e instant case of t(e same considerations of identity of parties and iss*es, economy of time and effort for t(e co*rt, t(e co*nsels and t(e parties as well as t(e need to resolve t(e parties+ rig(t of possession before t(e eFectment case may be properly determined, F*stifies t(e r*le+s analogo*s application to t(e case at bar. Tec(nically, a preF*dicial =*estion s(all not rise in t(e instant case since t(e two actions involved are bot( civil in nat*re. 9owever, we (ave to consider t(e fact t(at t(e cadastral proceedings will *ltimately settle t(e real ownerLs of t(e disp*ted parcel of land. .n case respondent Vicente Medina is adF*dged t(e real owner of t(e parcel of land, t(en t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition wo*ld necessarily be n*ll and void. Not only t(at. T(e demolition of t(e constr*ctions in t(e parcel of land wo*ld prove tr*ly *nF*st to t(e private respondents. Parent(etically, t(e iss*ance of t(e writ of possession and writ of demolition by t(e petitioner 7*dge in t(e eFectment proceedings was premat*re. D(at t(e petitioner s(o*ld (ave done was to stop t(e proceedings in t(e instant case and wait for t(e final o*tcome of t(e cadastral proceedings. <t any rate, affirmative relief based an t(e above disc*ssions is no longer possible. T(e demolition of t(e b*ildings owned by t(e private respondents is now a fait accompli. .n t(e case of Estate of :re%oria rancisco ' . 5ourt of Appeals 0) SC8< ' ' H) )I we awarded F*st compensation t(e amo*nt of w(ic( was for t(e trial co*rt to determine in favor of t(e petitioner w(ose b*ilding was demolis(ed by t(e m*nicipality even before a proper trib*nal co*ld decide w(et(er or not t(e b*ilding constit*ted a n*isance in law. >*r r*ling was premised on t(e gro*nd t(at t(e owner of t(e b*ilding was in lawf*l possession of t(e lot and t(e b*ilding by virt*e of t(e permit from t(e a*t(ori5ed government agency w(en t(e demolition was effected. De cannot, (owever, apply t(is r*ling to t(e present case. T(e legality of t(e occ*pation by t(e private respondents of t(e s*bFect parcel of land is still to be resolved in t(e cadastral proceedings. .n t(e event t(at respondent Vicente Medina is declared owner of t(e s*bFect parcel of land, necessarily, t(e private respondents wo*ld be entitled to F*st compensation for t(e precipitate demolition of t(eir b*ildings. >n t(e ot(er (and, if private respondent Medina is declared to (ave no rig(ts over t(e s*bFect parcel of land t(en, t(e private respondents wo*ld not be entitle to any compensation for t(e demolition of t(eir b*ildings. .n s*c( a case t(e private respondents are considered s=*atters and t(erefore, t(e demolition of t(eir b*ildings wo*ld t*rno*t to (ave been F*stified. /aced wit( t(ese alternative possibilities, and in t(e interest of F*stice, we r*le t(at t(e petitioner m*nicipality m*st p*t *p a bond to be determined by t(e trial co*rt to answer for 3ust compensation to w(ic( t(e private respondents may be entitled in case t(e demolition of t(eir b*ildings is adF*dged to be illegal. Moreover, t(e appellate co*rt correctly r*led t(is 8*le "! of t(e 8evised 8*les of Co*rt on eminent domain can not be made a s*bterf*ge to F*stify t(e petitioner 7*dge+s iss*ance of a writ of

possession in favor of petitioner m*nicipality. .n t(e recent case of National (ower 5orporation '. ;on. Enrique .. 7ocson- et al. 0;.8. No. 4) #- , /ebr*ary &', ) &2 we saidB .n M*nicipality of 0ian '. ;on. 7ose Mar :arcia, et al. 0)%$ SC8< '!" H) % I2 t(is Co*rt r*led t(at t(ere are two 0&2 stages in every action of eApropriationB ? T(e first is concerned wit( t(e determination of t(e a*t(ority of t(e plaintiff to eAercise t(e power of eminent domain and t(e propriety of its eAercise in t(e content of t(e facts involved in t(e s*it. 0Citing Sections ), & and #, 8*le "! of t(e 8*les of Co*rt.2 .t ends wit( an order, if not of dismissal of t(e action, @of condemnation declaring t(at t(e plaintiff (as a lawf*l rig(t to ta,e t(e property so*g(t to be condemned, for t(e p*blic *se or p*rpose described in t(e complaint, *pon t(e payment of F*st compensation to be determined as of t(e date of t(e filing of t(e complaint.@ 0Citing Section 4, 8*le "!E Nieto v. .sip, ! P(il. #)E 3eng*et Consolidated v. 8ep*blic, )4# SC8< 4"".2<n order of dismissal, if t(is be ordained, wo*ld be a final one, of co*rse, since it finally disposes of t(e action and leaves not(ing more to be done by t(e Co*rt on t(e merits. 05itin%.nvestments, .nc. v. Co*rt of <ppeals, et al., )4! SC8< ##42 So, too, wo*ld an order of condemnation on be a final one, for t(ereafter as t(e r*les eApressly state, in t(e proceedings before t(e Trial Co*rt, @no obFection to t(e eAercise of t(e rig(t of condemnation 0or t(e propriety t(ereof2 s(all be filed or (eard. T(e second p(ase of t(e eminent domain action is concerned wit( t(e determination to t(e Co*rt of @t(e F*st compensation in for t(e property so*g(t to be ta,en.@ T(is is done by t(e Co*rt wit( t(e assistance of not more t(an t(ree 0#2 commissioners 0 5itin%Sections ' to %, 8*le "! of t(e 8*les of Co*rt2 T(e order fiAing t(e F*st compensation on t(e basis of t(e evidence before, and findings of, t(e commissioners wo*ld be final, too. .t wo*ld finally dispose of t(e second stage of t(e s*it, and leave not(ing more to be done by t(e Co*rt regarding t(e iss*e. . . . 9owever, *pon t(e filing of t(e complaint or at any time t(ereafter, t(e petitioner (as t(e rig(t to ta,e enter *pon t(e possession of t(e property involved *pon compliance wit( P.4. No. 4& w(ic( re=*ires t(e petitioner, after d*e notice to t(e defendant, to deposit wit( t(e P(ilippine National 3an, in its main office or any of its branc(es or agencies, @an amo*nt e=*ivalent to t(e assessed val*e of t(e property for p*rposes of taAation.@ T(is assessed val*e is t(at indicated in t(e taA declaration. 9ence, even if we concede t(at 8*le "! is applicable to t(e instant case and t(at petitioner m*nicipality (ad t(e lawf*l rig(t to eFect t(e private respondents from t(e s*bFect parcel of land t(e iss*ance of a writ of possession in favor of petitioner m*nicipality wo*ld still not be legal if t(e petitioner m*nicipality really owns t(e land. T(e 7*dge did not re=*ire petitioner m*nicipality to deposit an amo*nt e=*ivalent to t(e F*st compensation d*e t(e private respondents as provided for *nder Presidential 4ecree 4&. .t is only after t(e deposit of t(e F*st compensation t(at petitioner m*nicipality wo*ld be entitled to a writ of possession. <not(er point raised by t(e petitioners =*estions t(e alleged r*ling of t(e appellate co*rt @t(at t(e petitioners are personally liable for damages to t(e private respondents for t(e abatement of p*blic

n*isance.@ 0Rollo- p. '$2 T(e petitioners misread t(e appellate co*rt+s decision. T(e records s(ow C(at t(e private respondents prayed for, in t(eir petition for certiorari filed wit( t(e appellate co*rt, among ot(ersB .t is li,ewise, prayed t(at respondents be ordered to pay Fointly and severally t(e val*e of t(e (o*se illegally demolis(ed in t(e amo*nt of P),$$$.$$ $$, attorney+s fees in t(e amo*nt of P'$,$$$.$$, moral damages in t(e amo*nt of P)$$,$$$.$$ and eAemplary damages in t(e amo*nt of P'$,$$$.$$, to pay t(e costs, . . . AAA AAA AAA 0C< Rollo, p. "2 .n response to t(is prayer, (owever, t(e appellate co*rt statedB De do not, (owever, (ave F*risdiction over petitioners+ claim for damages. T(is m*st be p*rs*ed in an appropriate action instit*ted in t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt. 0 Rollo- p. &"2 Moreover, t(e dispositive portion of t(e decision does not mention any personal liability for damages against t(e petitioners. T(e appre(ension of t(e petitioners lac,s fact*al basis. D9181/>81, t(e instant petition is 4.SM.SS14. T(e =*estioned decision and resol*tion of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals are <//.8M14. T(e trial co*rt is ordered to re=*ire t(e petitioner m*nicipality to p*t *p a bond to be determined by t(e co*rt after (earing to answer, for F*st compensation d*e t(e private respondents in case t(e demolition of t(eir b*ildings is adF*dged to be illegal. T(e @Motion to 4eclare in Contempt@ filed by petitioner 7*dge is referred to t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt of Pagadian City, 3ranc( )% in Civil Case No. #)'" for appropriate action. S> >841814.

$IOS$A$O A. SITC*ON, ET A"., vs. A"E'O A/UINO + O# 1%00 CONCEPCION, J.: T(ese are siA 0"2 class s*its against t(e City 1ngineer of Manila to enFoin (im from carrying o*t (is t(reat to demolis( t(e (o*ses of (etitioners (erein, *pon t(e gro*nd t(at said (o*ses constit*te p*blic n*isances. .n d*e co*rse, t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila rendered separate, b*t s*bstantially identical, decisions adverse to t(e (etitioners, w(o (ave appealed t(erefrom directly to t(is Co*rt. .nasm*c( as t(e fact are not disp*ted and t(e same iss*es (ave been raised in all t(ese cases, w(ic( were Fointly (eard before t(is Co*rt, we deem it fit to dispose of t(e appeals in one decision.

). Case No. 6-%) ) 0Case No. &)'#$ of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2 was instit*ted by 4iosdado <. Sitc(on, 6*is ;avino and Ponciano <doremos, in t(eir own be(alf and in representation of twenty-two 0&&2 persons, named in an anneA to t(e petition. .n ) 4! and ) 4%, said (etitioners occ*pied portions of t(e p*blic street ,nown as Calabas( 8oad, City of Manila, and constr*cted (o*ses t(ereon, wit(o*t t(e consent of t(e a*t(orities. 6ater on, some of t(em paid Nconcession fees or damages, for t(e *seO of said portions of t(e street, to a collector of t(e city treas*rer, w(o iss*ed receipts wit( an annotation readingBc(anroblesvirt*allawlibrary Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacate.O >n or abo*t 7*ly ', ) '&, Respondent City 1ngineer advised and ordered t(em to vacate t(e place and remove t(eir (o*ses t(erefrom before <*g*st ', ) '&, wit( t(e warning t(at ot(erwise (e wo*ld effect t(e demolition of said (o*ses at t(eir eApense. T(is notice (aving been *n(eeded, a demolition team of t(e office of t(e City 1ngineer informed t(e (etitioners in 4ecember, ) '#, t(at t(eir (o*ses wo*ld be removed, w(ere*pon t(e case was instit*ted for t(e p*rpose already stated. <t t(e instance of (etitioners (erein, t(e lower co*rt iss*ed a writ of preliminary inF*nction. &. Case No. 6-%# ! 0Case No. &)!'' of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2 was bro*g(t by 8icardo de la Cr*5, .sidro Pere5 and /ernando /ig*erroa, in t(eir be(alf and in representation of two (*ndred siAty-seven 0&"!2 persons, w(o, sometime after t(e liberation of Manila, occ*pied portions of <ntipolo and <lgeciras Streets, of said city, and constr*cted (o*ses t(ereon, wit(o*t any a*t(ority t(erefor. Several (etitioners later paid Nconcession fees or damagesO to a collector of t(e city treas*rer, and were given receipts wit( t(e annotationB Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacate.O T(e constr*ctions were s*c( t(at t(e roads and drainage on bot( sides t(ereof were obstr*cted. .n some places, t(e ditc(es *sed for drainage p*rposes were completely obliterated. D(at is more, said ditc(es cannot be opened, repaired or placed in proper condition beca*se of said (o*ses. >n or abo*t May )', ) '&, Respondent City 1ngineer advised t(em to vacate t(e place and remove t(eir (o*ses wit(in a stated period, wit( t(e warning already referred to. 9ence, t(e instit*tion of t(e case, *pon t(e filing of w(ic( a writ of preliminary inF*nction was iss*ed. #. /elino Pe:a, /rancisco Morales and 7ose Villan*eva filed case No. 6-%'$$ 0Case No. &)'#' of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2, on t(eir own be(alf and in representation of abo*t t(irty 0#$2 persons, w(o, wit(o*t t(e aforementioned a*t(ority, occ*pied portions of t(e street area of 8. Papa 1Atension, City of Manila, sometime after its liberation. <s in t(e preceding cases, several (etitioners paid Nconcession fees or damagesO to a collector of t(e city treas*rer, Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacateO, w(ic( was given on May )$, ) '&, wit( t(e warning t(at s(o*ld t(ey fail to remove said (o*ses, Respondent wo*ld do so, at t(eir eApense. Cpon being advised, later on, of t(e intention of RespondentJs agents to carry o*t said t(reat, t(e corresponding petition was filed and a writ of preliminary inF*nction sec*red. 4. Santiago 3rotamonte, ;odofredo 3lan=*iso and Salvador 7*stiniano commenced case No. 6%')# 0Case No. &)'#) of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2, on t(eir be(alf and in representation of forty-two 04&2 ot(er persons, w(o, wit(o*t any a*t(ority, occ*pied portions of t(e bed of a branc( of t(e 1stero de San Mig*el, City of Manila, and constr*cted (o*ses t(ereon, sometime in ) 4! and ) 4%. <s in t(e cases already mentioned, some of t(em paid concession fees or damages, Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacateO, w(ic( was given, wit( t(e *s*al warning, in 4ecember, ) '#. T(e instit*tion of t(e case and a writ of preliminary inF*nction soon followed. '. .n case No. 6-%')" 0Case No. &)'%$ of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2, 1rnesto Navarro, Pablo Salas and 9erminigildo 4igap are (etitioners, on t(eir own be(alf and in t(at of fifteen 0)'2 persons, w(o, sometime after t(e liberation of Manila, occ*pied portions of t(e bed of t(e Pasig 8iver, at abo*t t(e end of 8io Vista Street, San Mig*el, Manila, w(ic( are covered and *ncovered by t(e tide, and erected (o*ses t(ere on wit(o*t any a*t(ority t(erefor. NConcession fees or damagesO were paid by some of t(em, Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacateO. <fter giving, on or abo*t 7*ne &$, ) '&, t(e corresponding notice and warning, w(ic( were not

(eeded, Respondent t(reatened to demolis( said (o*ses at (etitionersJ eApense, w(ere*pon t(e case was instit*ted and a writ of preliminary inF*nction sec*red. ". Case No. 6-%"&$ 0Case No. &&)4# of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila2 was filed by <mado Sayo, Marciano 6amco and Victor 3ernardo, on t(eir be(alf and in t(at of twenty-two 0&&2 ot(er persons, w(o, in ) 4" and ) 4!, occ*pied portions of Torres 3*gallon, Cavite, Misericordia and <ntipolo Streets, in t(e City of Manila, and constr*cted (o*ses t(ereon, wit(o*t any a*t(ority t(erefor. Some paid Nmont(ly rentals andLor damages, andLor concession feesO from ) 4" to ) '), Nwit(o*t preF*dice to t(e order to vacateO, w(ic( was given on May ), ) '&, wit( t(e *s*al warning, followed, abo*t two 0&2 years later, by a t(reat to demolis( said (o*ses. 9ence, t(e case, *pon t(e filing of w(ic( writ of preliminary inF*nction was iss*ed. <fter appropriate proceedings, t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Manila rendered separate decisions, t(e dispositive part of w(ic(, eAcept in case No. 6-%"&$, is of t(e following tenorB NPor tanto, el 7*5gado sobresee esta ca*sa por falta de meritos y ordena al ingeniero de la ci*dad de Maniia =*e (aga la demolicion o la remocion de las citadas casas, dentro de =*ince dias desp*es de (aber avisado al efecto a los a=*i rec*rrentes, y a costa de los mismos.O .n said case No. 6-%"&$, t(e lower co*rt rendered F*dgment as followsB N.n view of t(e foregoing considerations t(e Co*rt (ereby declaresB N0a2 t(at t(e (o*ses of all (etitioners in t(is case erected on t(e land w(ic( forms part of Torres 3*gallon, Cavite, Misericordia and <ntipolo Streets constit*te p*blic n*isance as defined by section )))& of >rdinance No. )"$$ of t(e City of Manila and by <rticle " 4 paragrap(s 4 and ' of t(e Civil Code and N0b2 t(at t(e City 1ngineer of t(e City of Manila is t(e official a*t(ori5ed by <rticle )))& of >rdinance No. )"$$ of t(e City of Manila and <rticle " , paragrap( # of t(e Civil Code to abate said p*blic n*isance and c(arge t(e eApenses t(ereof to (etitioners.O (etitioners contend t(at said decisions s(o*ld be reversed *pon t(e gro*nd t(at, in trying to demolis( t(eir respective (o*ses wit(o*t notice and (earing, t(e city engineer so*g(t to deprive t(em of t(eir property wit(o*t d*e process of law, apart from t(e fact t(at, *nder <rticles !$) and !$& of t(e new Civil Code, t(e power to remove p*blic n*isances is vested in t(e district (ealt( officer, not in Respondent city engineer. .t s(o*ld be noted, (owever, t(at, before eApressing (is intent to demolis( t(e (o*ses in =*estion, Respondent (ad advised and ordered t(e (etitioners to remove said (o*ses, wit(in t(e periods stated in t(e corresponding noticesE c(an roblesvirt*alawlibraryt(at (etitioners do not =*estion, and (ave not =*estioned, t(e reasonableness or s*fficiency of said periodsE c(an roblesvirt*alawlibraryand t(at t(ey (ave never as,ed Respondent (erein to give t(em an opport*nity to s(ow t(at t(eir (o*ses do not constit*te p*blic n*isances. 3esides, it is not disp*ted t(at said (o*ses are standing on p*blic streets, wit( t(e eAception of t(e (o*ses involved in cases Nos. %')# and %')", w(ic( are b*ilt on portions of river beds. .t is clear, t(erefore, t(at said (o*ses are p*blic n*isances, p*rs*ant to <rticles " 4 and " ' of t(e Civil Code of t(e P(ilippines, w(ic( is 8ep*blic <ct No. #%", readingB <8T. " 4. ? N< n*isance is any act, omission, establis(ment, b*siness, condition of property, or anyt(ing else w(ic(B N0)2 .nF*res or endangers t(e (ealt( or safety of ot(ersE N0&2 <nnoys or offends t(e sensesE N0#2 S(oc,s, defies or disregards decency or moralityE N042 >bstr*cts or interferes wit( t(e free passage of any p*blic (ig(way or street, or any body of waterE

N0'2 9inders or impairs t(e *se of property.O <8T. " '. ? NN*isance is eit(er p*blic or private. < p*blic n*isance affects a comm*nity or neig(bor(ood or any considerable n*mber of persons, alt(o*g( t(e eAtent of t(e annoyance, danger or damage *pon individ*als may be *ne=*al. < private n*isance is one t(at is not incl*ded in t(e foregoing definition.O 0.talics s*pplied.2 .t is tr*e t(at <rticles !$$ and !$& of t(e same Code provideB <8T. !$$. ? NT(e district (ealt( officer s(all ta,e care t(at one or all of t(e remedies against a p*blic n*isance are availed of.O <8T. !$&. ? NT(e district (ealt( officer s(all determine w(et(er or not abatement, wit(o*t F*dicial proceedings, is t(e best remedy against a p*blic n*isance.O 9owever, section #) of 8ep*blic <ct No. 4$ , t(e 8evised C(arter of t(e City of Manila, specifically places *pon t(e city engineer t(e d*ty, among ot(ers, Nto (ave c(arge of t(e care of streets, canals and esteros OE Nprevent t(e encroac(ment of private b*ildings t(e streets and p*blic places OE N(ave s*pervision of all private doc,s, w(arves, piers and ot(er property bordering on t(e (arbor, rivers, esteros and waterways and iss*e permits for t(e constr*ction, repair and removal of t(e same and enforce all ordinances relating to t(e sameOE N(ave t(e care and c*stody of all so*rces of water s*pply cralawOE to Nca*se b*ildings dangero*s to t(e p*blic to be OE torn downOE and to Norder t(e removal of b*ildings and str*ct*res erected in violation of t(e ordinances O. >bvio*sly, articles !$$ and !$& of 8ep*blic <ct No. #%", s(o*ld yield to said section #) of 8ep*blic <ct No. 4$ , not only beca*se t(e former preceded t(e latter, b*t, also, beca*se said section #) of 8ep*blic <ct No. 4$ is a special provision specifically designed for t(e City of Manila, w(ereas said <rticles !$$ and !$& of t(e Civil Code are general provisions applicable t(ro*g(o*t t(e P(ilippines. Moreover, section ))&& of t(e 8evised >rdinance of t(e City of Manila 0No. )"$$2 eAplicitly a*t(ori5es t(e action so*g(t to be ta,en by Respondent (erein, by providingB ND(enever t(e owner or person responsible for any *na*t(ori5ed obstr*ction s(all, after official notice from t(e proper department, ref*se or neglect to remove t(e same wit(in a reasonable time, s*c( obstr*ction s(all be deemed a p*blic n*isance, and t(e city engineer is a*t(ori5ed to remove t(e same at t(e ownerJs eApense.O <gain, (o*ses constr*cted, wit(o*t governmental a*t(ority, on p*blic streets and waterways, obstr*ct at all times t(e free *se by t(e p*blic of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constit*te n*isances per se, aside from p*blic n*isances. <s s*c(, t(e s*mmary removal t(ereof, wit(o*t F*dicial process or proceedings may be a*t(ori5ed by t(e stat*te or m*nicipal ordinance, despite t(e d*e process cla*se. 0"" 5.7.S. !##-!#4.2 NT(e police power of t(e state F*stifies t(e abatement or destr*ction, by s*mmary proceedings, of w(atever may be regarded as a p*blic n*isanceE c(an roblesvirt*alawlibraryand t(e legislat*re may a*t(ori5e t(e s*mmary abatement of a n*isance wit(o*t F*dicial process or proceeding. N T(e remedy of s*mmary abatement for violation of a m*nicipal ordinance may be *sed against a p*blic n*isance.O 0"" 5.7.S. %'', %'".2 ND(en necessary to ins*re t(e p*blic safety, t(e legislat*re may *nder its police power a*t(ori5e m*nicipal a*t(orities s*mmarily to destroy property wit(o*t legal process or previo*s notice to t(e owner. N cralaw .t is not an obFection to t(e validity of a police reg*lation t(at it does not provide for a (earing or for notice to t(e owner before (is property is s*bFected to restraint or destr*ction.O 0)& <m. 7*r. #'", #'!.2 N.n t(e eAercise of t(e police power t(e state may a*t(ori5e its officers s*mmarily to abate p*blic

n*isances wit(o*t resort to legal proceedings and wit(o*t notice or a (earing. M*nicipal Corporations generally (ave power to ca*se t(e abatement of p*blic n*isances s*mmarily wit(o*t resort to legal proceedings.O 0# <m. 7*r. 4'', 4'", 4'!.2O 3eing in conformity wit( t(e facts and t(e law, t(e decisions appealed from are (ereby affirmed in toto, and t(e writs of preliminary inF*nction iss*ed by t(e lower co*rt dissolved, wit( costs against (etitioners-Appellants. .t is SO OR$ERE$.

1ICTORIANA ESPIRITU, et. al. vs.T*E !UNICIPA" COUNCI", !UNICIPA" !AYOR an: T*E C*IEF OF PO"ICE OF PO3ORRU&IO, PAN#ASINAN #.R. No. "51121(. 'an6ar7 1, 10+. !ONTE!AYOR, J.8 T(is is an appeal from t(e decision of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Pangasinan of <pril &%, ) '", dismissing t(e petition for pro(ibition filed by appellants, lifting t(e preliminary inF*nction against t(e appellees and ordering t(e removal of appellants+ stalls from t(e p*blic pla5a of appellee m*nicipality, wit(in ten days from notice. Pending appeal, co*nsel for t(e appellees filed a Manifestation on September )", ) '!, copy of w(ic( was d*ly served on appellants, t(at several mont(s after t(e oral arg*ment (eld before t(is Trib*nal on 7an*ary &', ) '!, appellants (ad vol*ntarily vacated t(e p*blic pla5a of Po5orr*bio by transferring and removing t(eir b*ildings and t(erefrom to private lots fronting t(e pla5aE and t(at t(e m*nicipality (ad already beg*n t(e constr*ction of concrete fences in t(e premises, formerly occ*pied by appellants, wit(o*t any complaint w(atsover from t(em or t(eir co*nselE and t(at conse=*ently, t(e present case (as become moot and academic, and as,ing t(at t(e present appeal be dismissed. 3y resol*tion of t(is Co*rt of >ctober &), ) '!, appellants were re=*ired to comment on t(is Manifestation and petition for dismissal, wit(in ten days from notice. 4espite notice of (is resol*tion, appellants failed to file t(eir re=*ired comment. /or t(is reason, we co*ld well s*mmarily dismiss t(is appeal by resol*tion. 9owever, for t(e satisfaction of t(e parties and for possible g*idance of town officials and residents, we (avre deemed it convenient and necessary to decide t(e case by formal decision. T(e facts are not disp*ted. .n fact, no evidence was s*bmitted at t(e (earing before t(e trial co*rt, t(e parties (aving petitioned t(at t(e case be decided on t(e pleadings. 4*ring t(e last world war, t(e mar,et b*ilding of t(e town of Po5orr*bio was destroyed, and after 6iberation, t(e mar,et vendors began constr*cting temporary and ma,e-s(ifts stalls,, even small residences, on a portion of t(e town pla5a. T(e M*nicipal Treas*rer collected from t(ese stall owners fees at t(e rate of P.&' per s=*are meter a mont(. .n time, t(e w(ole m*nicipal mar,et was re(abilitated, b*t t(e owners of t(e str*ct*res on t(e pla5a failed and ref*sed to transfer to said mar,et place. T(e M*nicipal Co*ncil of Po5orr*bio received petitions from civic organi5ations li,e t(e Domen+s Cl*b and t(e P*eric*lt*re Center, for t(e removal of t(e mar,et stalls on t(e pla5a, w(ic( were being *sed not only as stalls, b*t also for residence p*rposes, said organi5ation desiring to convert said portion of t(e pla5a into a c(ildren+s par,. T(e Provincial 3oard of Pangasinan (ad also

presented to t(e Co*ncil t(e petition of anot(er civic organi5ation of Po5orr*bio, as,ing for t(e removal of t(e stalls from t(e pla5a, and t(e attention of t(e C>*ncil was also called to t(e lattercirc*lar of t(e Secretary of t(e .nterior abo*t t(e eAistence of t(ese stalls on t(e p*blic pla5a, said to be illegal. <s a res*lt, t(e M*nicipal Co*ncil of Po5orr*bio No. &$, Series of ) '), stating t(at t(e p*blic mar,et (ad already been re(abilitated, and ordering t(e occ*pants and owners of t(e str*ct*res on t(e pla5a to remove t(eir b*ildings wit(in siAty days from receipt of t(e resol*tion. .n answer to t(is resol*tion, eig(t of t(e mar,et stall b*ilding owners filed a petition for pro(ibition in t(e Co*r of /irst .nstance of Pangasinan against t(e M*nicipal Co*ncil, t(e M*nicipal Mayor, and t(e C(ief of Police of Po5orr*bio. Pending (earing, t(e trial co*rt iss*ed a writ of preliminary inF*nction. T(e trial co*rt fo*nd t(at t(e fee of P.&' per s=*are meter collected by t(e M*nicipal Tres*rer, was not for t(e rent of t(e portion of t(e p*blic pla5a occ*pied by t(e mar,et stalls, as claimed by appellants, b*t rat(er t(e mar,et stall fees c(arges on all mar,et vendors in a p*blic mar,etE and t(at t(ere was absol*tely no contract or agreement between t(e appellants on one side and t(e m*nicipality on t(e ot(er, abo*t renting of t(e Pla5a to t(e former. T(ere is reason to believe t(at t(e occ*pation of t(e pla5a and t(e constr*ction of temporary b*ildings t(ereon by appellants mostly for mar,et, even residence p*rposes, was merley tolerated by t(e m*nicipality, beca*se of t(e destr*ction of t(e p*blic mar,et d*ring t(ewar, b*t t(e tro*ble is t(at appellants, even after t(e re(abilitationof t(e old mar,et, ref*sed to transfer to said mar,et place, per(aps to save t(e tro*ble and eApense of transferring t(eir b*ildings, or possibly to contin*e enFoying t(e benefits from t(e strategic position of t(eir stalls at t(e pla5a. T(ere is absol*telyno =*estion t(at t(e town pla5a cannot be *sed for t(e constr*ction of mar,et stalls, specially of residences, and t(at s*c( str*ct*res constit*te a n*isance s*bFect to abatement according to law. Town Pla5as are properties of p*blic dominion, to be devoted to p*blic *se and to be made available to t(e p*blic in general. T(ey are o*tside t(e commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by t(e m*nicipality to private parties.) D(ile in case of war or d*ring an emergency, town pla5as may be occ*pied temporarily by private individ*als, as was done and as was tolerated by t(e M*nicipality of Po5orr*bio, w(en t(e emergency (as ceased, said temporary occ*pation or *se m*st also cease, and t(e town officials s(o*ld see to it t(at t(e town pla5as s(o*ld ever be ,ept open to t(e p*blic and free from enc*mbrances or illegal private constr*ctions. <ppellants m*st (ave reali5ed t(e absol*te lac, of merit in t(eir stand and t(e f*tility of t(eir appeal beca*se t(ey vol*ntarily removed t(eir b*ildings on t(e pla5a. <s a matter f fact, after t(e filing of t(e pro(ibition wit( t(e trial co*rt, two o*t of t(e eig(t petitioners informed t(e trial co*rt t(at t(ey were incl*ded as petitioners wit(o*t t(eir consent, and so as,ed t(at t(ey be eAcl*ded from t(e case. .n view of t(e foregoing, t(e decision appealed from is (ereby affirmed. Dit( costs against appellants.

'UAN &EN#3ON vs.T*E PRO1INCE OF PAN#ASINAN

#.R. No. "5(10(1. 'an6ar7 0, 10%, &UTTE, J.: .n t(is case t(e motion for reconsideration of t(e decision prom*lgated on >ctober &", ) #', was granted and t(e case set for re-arg*ment on 4ecember )!, ) #'. T(e co*rt (aving (ad t(e benefit of t(e oral arg*ment of co*nsel on t(e iss*e of t(eir present val*e of t(e premises of t(e plaintiffappellant involved in t(is s*it, its decision of >ctober &", ) #', is amended to read as followsB T(is is an appeal from a F*dgment of t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of Pangasinan in action for damages for maintaining a n*isance contin*o*sly inF*rio*s to t(e plaintiff and (is family by reason of t(e maintenance and operation of a stand pipe, p*mping station and open reservoir for t(e storage of water *pon t(e premises immediately adFacent to t(e plaintiff+s residence. .t appears from t(e stip*lation of facts t(at t(e plaintiff owns a (o*se constr*cted of wood and covered wit( nipa on <venida 8i5al, m*nicipality of 6ingayen, Province of PangasinanE t(at (e (ad and (is family (ave resided t(ere for twenty-seven years, (is family being composed of eig(t members. T(eir (o*se is two stories constr*cted *pon a lot w(ic( contains !&$ s=*are meter. Cpon t(e adFacent lot t(e defendant, d*ring t(e years ) &4 and ) &', constr*cted a reinforced concrete stand pipe &% meters (ig( and nine meters in diameter. Dit(in t(e base of t(is cylindrical tan, t(ere are t(ree mac(inesB >ne electrical, one gasoline and one cr*de oil. >n t(e side of t(e tan, nearest t(e plaintiff+s residence and at a distance of #.4 meters is a c(imney w(ic( rises to abo*t t(e (eig(t of t(e gable of t(e (o*se. T(e tan, itself is #.% meters from t(e (o*se of t(e plaintiff. .n Marc(, ) &!, t(e plaintiff protested to t(e governor of t(e province for t(e manner in w(ic( t(e plant was being operated and as,ed t(at (e be indemnified for t(e val*e of (is (o*se and lot so t(at (e mig(t move (is family and (is effects to anot(er residence. .n t(is protest (e statedB @1Apide (*mo y olor desagradable =*e penetran en el interior de mi casa, a*n cerradas s*s ventanas, molestos y perF*diciales a n*estra sal*d. 6a c(imenea de la ma=*ina, =*e esta en en el lado del tan=*e, contig*o al alero de mi casa, a*n=*e esta env*ela en la cabe5a como *na red de acero c(ispea en ocasiones en =*e detro de la red se (a ac*m*lado por el (*mo bastante s*ciedad inflamable, y si alg*mas tig*o de mi casa, tec(ada de nipa, ella nat*ralmente nada de s* contenido. @1l tang*e nos as*sta y ponne en en peligro de ser aplastadoos por el, siempre =*e oc*rre *n tembor como ya (a oc*rrido varias veces desde s* levantamiento, por s*s porciones y condiciones mencionadas, y la circ*nstancia de estar plantado sobre terreno blado, baFo y anegadi5o. No es improbable, ni menos increible, =*e este tan=*e volcara o se t*mbra, si oc*rriera en 6ingayen *n temblor tan f*erte como el oc*rrido el a:o "# * %$ en Manila, o el occ*rrido en 7apon en ) &#, o en la fec(a ! de estee mes, =*e derr*mbo m*c(as casas, matando a millares de personas. Ning*na personans, por sabia =*e sea, p*ede dar certid*mre y seg*ridad de =*e no se t*mbaria, por c*al=*ier terremoto f*erte =*e occ*riera a=*i en 6ingayen, maAime, estado cargada de C.1N M.6 galones de ag*a en s* parte s*perior. G si en ocasion en =*e yo mi familia est*vieramos dormidos, oc*rrienran el temblor y el volacamiento del T<NQC1 (acia mi casa ay de nosotrosT@ <fter ma,ing an oc*lar inspection of t(e plant and (earing t(e testimony of t(e witnesses, t(e trial co*rt came to t(e concl*sion t(at alt(o*g( t(e operation of t(e p*mps and t(e tan, creates some annoyance and discomfort to t(e plaintiff, t(ese are b*t ordinary and incidental to t(e reasonable cond*ct of t(e defendant+s water system. T(e co*rt f*rt(er (eld t(at inasm*c( as t(e plaintiff did not

protest till after t(e plan was constr*cted, (is action is barred for lac(es. /or t(is later concl*sion of law t(e trial co*rt cites no a*t(ority and we are not aware of any. .t is to be noted t(at t(is is not a s*it for e=*itable relief b*t an action for damages. T(e doctrine t(at one w(o consents to permits or ac=*iesces in t(e erection of str*ct*re wit( ,nowledge of t(e p*rpose for w(ic( it is to be p*t and t(e conse=*ences of its *ses are prod*ctive of a n*isance, is not applicable (ere, for t(e plaintiff neit(er consented to, permitted or ac=*iesced in t(e erection of t(e str*ct*reE nor co*ld it fairly be said t(at (e (ad ,nowledge in advance of all t(e conse=*ences of t(e erection and t(e manner of operation of t(e plant (ere in =*estion. T(e amended complaint in t(is case was filed on 7an*ary 4, ) #$, from w(ic( we infer t(at t(e s*it was instit*ted some time before t(at date. 3*t t(ere is not(ing in t(e record w(ic( warrants t(e inference of an estoppel by ac=*iescence. T(e learned trial F*dge, in (is decision of 7an*ary &!, ) #4, made a caref*l and eA(a*stive analysis bot( of t(e law and t(e evidence in t(is case. 3*t after a caref*l eAamination of t(e entire record, we cannot accept (is concl*sion t(at t(e evidence a case of actionable n*isance. .n locating its p*mping station wit(in #.% meters from t(e (o*se of t(e plaintiff, t(e defendant s(o*ld reasonably (ave foreseen t(at t(e noise, vibrations, smo,e, odor and spar,s coming from t(e plant d*ring its operation, not only d*ring t(e day b*t d*ring t(e nig(t as well, wo*ld ca*se a constant annoyance, discomfort and danger bot( to t(e property of t(e plaintiff and t(e (ealt( and comport of (imself and (is family. T(e c(imney w(ic( is F*st opposite t(e plaintiff+s (o*se at a distance of only #.4 meters emits smo,e, gases of cr*de oil and gasoline and occasionally spar,s well. T(e plaintiff testified t(at at times t(e smo,e blinds (im and (is family affecting t(eir l*ngs and t(eir eyes and t(at t(e noise and vibrations affect t(eir sleep. <s against t(e testimony of t(e plaintiff, w(o is eAposed day in and day o*t to t(ese conditions, and of (is neig(bors w(o corroborate (im, t(e brief oc*lar inspection made by t(e co*rt on one day, alt(o*g( cond*cted wit( eminent fairness, seems to *s to be entitled to less weig(t. T(e witnesses for t(e defendant, its employees, nat*rally minimi5e t(e (armf*l effects to t(e plaintiff of t(e operation of t(e mac(ines in t(e p*mping plant. 3*t t(e evidence as a w(ole leaves *s wit( clear conviction t(at t(e constr*ction and operation of t(is p*mping plant in s*c( close proAimity to t(e plaintiff+s residence (as rendered t(e same practically *nin(abitable wit(o*t eAposing to ris, t(e comfort, (ealt( and, in case of fire, even t(e live of t(e plaintiff and (is family. De find from t(e preponderance of t(e evidence t(at t(e fair present val*e of t(e appellant+s premises involved in t(is s*it is P#,$$$E and as, *nder t(e circ*mstances, t(e maintenance of t(e n*isance is practically tantamo*nt to an eApropriation, we (ave concl*ded t(at t(e defendantappellee s(o*ld be and it is (ereby re=*ired and adF*dged to pay by (im to it of a valid conveyance of t(e premises, free of liens and inc*mbrances, reserving to t(e plaintiff-appellant t(e rig(t to remove (is improvements t(erefrom wit(in t(ree mont(s from t(e date of payment of t(e said P#,$$$. T(e F*dgment appealed from is reserved and t(e ca*se is remanded for f*rt(er proceedings in accordance wit( t(is decision. No special prono*ncement as to costs in t(is instance.

T*E *O!EO4NERS ASSOCIATION OF E" $EPOSITO vs. *ON. #UAR$SON "OO$ #.R. No. "5%1.,(. Septe9ber 0, 10PER CURIA!8 Petitioners filed on <pril )', ) !$ t(is action for certiorari and pro(ibition wit( preliminary inF*nction to set aside respondent co*rt+s =*estioned orders dated /ebr*ary , ) !$ and Marc( #$, ) !$ denying petitioners+ motions for iss*ance of a writ of preliminary inF*nction to stay t(e demolition and removal of t(eir (o*ses and str*ct*res on a parcel of p*blic land in barrios Cora5on de 7es*s and 9alo 9alo in San 7*an, 8i5al, 0more pop*larly ,nown as @1l 4eposito@ from t(e Spanis( times2, pending final o*tcome of Civil Case No. ))$!% filed by t(em before respondent co*rt. Petitioners+ action below was one for declaratory relief to declare as n*ll and void as eA post facto legislation, m*nicipal ordinance No. % , as amended, of respondent M*nicipality of San 7*an, pro(ibiting s=*atting on p*blic property and providing a penalty t(erefor, *nder w(ic( ordinance, petitioners claimed, respondents were s*mmarily demolis(ing and removing t(eir (o*ses and improvements. >n <pril &$, ) !$, *pon iss*ance of s*mmons re=*iring respondents to answer t(e petition, t(e Co*rt iss*ed a temporary restraining order restraining respondents, *ntil f*rt(er orders, @from proceeding wit( t(e s*mmary destr*ction, removal and demolition of all ot(er (o*ses fo*nd in t(e premises of t(e land in barrio Cora5on de 7es*s and barrio 9alo 9alo, San 7*an, 8i5al, by reason of >rdinance No. % -<md. as amended, passed by t(e M*nicipal Co*ncil of San 7*an, 8i5al, on <pril &", ) "% ... .@

8espondents filed t(eir answer in d*e co*rse and t(e case was t(ereafter s*bmitted for decision wit( t(e filing by t(e parties of t(eir respective memoranda in lie* of oral arg*ment. <s restated by petitioners t(emselves in t(eir memorand*m, t(e main iss*e at bar is w(et(er respondent F*dge @eAceeded (is a*t(ority and F*risdiction and gravely ab*sed (is discretion@ 1 in iss*ing t(e =*estioned orders of /ebr*ary , and Marc( #$, ) !$, denying t(e preliminary inF*nction so*g(t to stay demolition and removal of petitioners+ (o*ses and str*ct*res. Petitioners raise as iss*es also t(e iss*e of validity and constit*tionality of m*nicipal ordinance No. % -<mended as =*estioned by t(em in t(eir action below, and w(et(er respondent 1ngineer may remove or demolis( t(eir (o*ses wit(o*t a special co*rt demolition order *nder said c(allenged ordinanceE and f*rt(ermore, @w(et(er t(e filing of t(e petition for comp*lsory registration in 68C Cad. Case No. N-", 68C Cad. 8ec. No. N-')) w(ic( placed in iss*e t(e stat*s of t(e land as demanded for reasons of p*blic interest w(ere t(e (o*ses and ot(er improvements of t(e petitioners as claimants in t(e cadastral proceeding are fo*nd, precl*des t(e enforcement of m*nicipal ordinance No. % <md.@ S*bse=*ent events (ave cleared *p t(e matter of t(is last iss*e as to t(e alleged pendency of a petition in petitioner+s favor for comp*lsory registration of t(e land in =*estion, as s(own by proceedings (eld in t(e 8i5al co*rt of first instance and t(is Co*rt as (ereinafter reco*nted. < motion to reopen t(e cadastral proceedings % was filed *nder date of <*g*st &, ) !) by petitioners as claimants, citing t(e passage on 7*ne ) , ) !) of 8ep*blic <ct No. "&#" w(ic( eAtended t(e time limit 0not to eAtend beyond 4ecember #), ) !"2 for filing of applications for free patents and for F*dicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to p*blic agric*lt*ral lands. T(e co*rt of first instance of 8i5al, 3ranc( ., presided by 7*dge 1milio V. Salas (ad denied s*c( reopening of t(e proceedings as per its order dated <*g*st &$, ) !), @it appearing t(at t(e instant case was dismissed wit(o*t preF*dice in o*r order dated <pril ", ) !$, w(ic( order was affirmed by t(e S*preme Co*rt in its resol*tion in ;.8. No. 6-#&)'", dated <*g*st )$, ) !$, w(ic( became final and eAec*tory since September ), ) !$.@ ( Petitioners-claimants+ motion for reconsideration, notwit(standing, wit(drawal of t(e opposition of respondent m*nicipality of San 7*an, 8i5al, was denied in t(e 8i5al co*rt of first instance+s order dated November )", ) !). < special civil action for certiorari and mandam*s was t(en filed on 4ecember )#, ) !) by petitioners-claimants and doc,eted as Case 6-#44#% of t(is Co*rt. ' Said action was dismissed for lac, of merit per t(e Co*rt+s resol*tion t(erein of 4ecember )", ) !). 8econsideration was denied for lac, of merit per t(e Co*rt+s resol*tion of May &#, ) !&, after t(e Co*rt (ad received t(e comment of t(e t(erein respondent Metropolitan Daterwor,s and Sewerage System, 0as s*ccessorin-interest of Nawasa2 asserting its owners(ip of t(e property since its s*rvey in ) )$ as cond*cted for t(e Metropolitan Dater 4istrict 0predecessor-in-interest of Nawasa2 and approved by t(e 4irector of 6ands. .n its comment, said t(erein respondent MDSS f*rt(er averred t(at wit(in t(e property w(ic( (ad been declared for taAation p*rposes in t(e name of t(e old Metropolitan Dater 4istrict 0wit( a total area of )#&,' ! s=*are meters, of w(ic( )4,)#% s=*are meters are *sed for p*blic roads2 , are @a=*ed*cts and an *ndergro*nd reservoir@, and t(at its predecessor-in-interest 0Nawasa2 (ad sold a portion 0)",4$ s=. meters2 of t(e property to t(e M*nicipality of San 7*an 0on w(ic( are constr*cted t(e m*nicipality+s elementary sc(ool, (ome economics b*ilding and gymnasi*m2, leased a portion t(ereof 04,)$& s=. meters2 for t(e m*nicipality+s p*blic (ig( sc(ool, and @leased some lots to t(ose w(o (ave s=*atted on t(e said property.@ '$,$$$ s=*are meters or

five (ectares of t(e property were li,ewise leased by t(e Nawasa to t(e Pinaglabanan Commemorative Commission 0created by 1Aec*tive >rder No. &"# of t(e President of t(e P(ilippines dated <*g*st )', ) '!2 - for a -year period from <*g*st &), ) "# for t(e site of t(e national s(rine to commemorate t(e @3attle of Pinaglabanan@ on <*g*st &% and & , )% " between t(e Katip*nan revol*tionaries and t(e Spanis( garrison defending t(e g*npowder d*mp 0called t(e @polvorin@2 in San 7*an, 8i5al. /inal entry of t(e dismissal order of 4ecember )", ) !) was made as of 7*ne )&, ) !&. 9ence, it is =*ite clear t(at as of now, t(ere eAist no proceedings, cadastral or ot(erwise, =*estioning t(e p*blic c(aracter of t(e land and asserting petitioners+ alleged claims of owners(ip t(ereto. >n t(e main iss*e at bar, t(e Co*rt is satisfied t(at by no means may respondent co*rt be said to (ave eAceeded its a*t(ority or gravely ab*sed its discretion in iss*ing its =*estioned orders denying petitioners+ motion below for a writ of preliminary inF*nction allegedly @to maintain t(e stat*s =*o@ and stay demolition and removal of t(eir illegal constr*ctions fo*nd to be p*blic n*isances per se and serio*s (a5ards to p*blic (ealt(, . by virt*e of t(e following principal considerationsB ). <s fo*nd in respondent co*rt+s eAtended two-page order of /ebr*ary , ) !$ 0 and ten-page order of Marc( #$, ) !$ 12 denying reconsideration, petitioners+ motions to maintain t(e alleged status quo were based on t(e same gro*nds already reiterated before and denied by t(en 7*dge 0now appellate associate F*stice2 <ndres 8eyes w(o was t(en presiding over respondent co*rt in an order dated September ) , ) "%, 11 w(ic( was *p(eld in a similar action for certiorari by t(e Co*rt of <ppeals in its decision of /ebr*ary 4, ) " . 1 &. .n bot( said proceedings before 7*dge 8eyes and t(e Co*rt of <ppeals, petitioners s*cceeded in obtaining restraining orders or preliminary writs of inF*nction to stay demolition, w(ic( were dissolved *pon said co*rt+s (anding down t(eir order or decision on t(e merits of t(e inF*nction petitions s*bmitted by petitioners. Dit( petitioners definitely (aving lost t(eir bid to reopen t(e cadastral proceedings to p*rs*e t(eir alleged claims of owners(ip over t(e lands occ*pied by t(eir constr*ctions, supra, no f*rt(er reason or F*stification eAists to contin*e t(e stay order against t(e removal and demolition of t(eir constr*ctions. #. <s was well stated in t(en 7*dge 8eyes+ order of September ) , ) "%, petitioners failed after several (earings @to s(ow t(at t(ey (ave even a color of title to entitle t(em to eAercise t(e rig(t of possession to t(e premises in =*estion. >n t(e ot(er (and, t(e land is admittedly p*blic land and conse=*ently t(e petitioners (ave no rig(t to possession t(ereof.....@ 1% 4. Petitioners+ lac, of rig(t to t(e inF*nction so*g(t by t(em was f*rt(er s(own in t(e Co*rt of <ppeals+ decision of /ebr*ary 4, ) " , w(ere it noted t(at @t(eir very evidence, t(eir doc*mentary proof, wo*ld F*stify t(at t(eir (o*ses were b*ilt *pon land of t(e Metropolitan Dater 4istrict, t(at is to say, of t(e P(ilippine ;overnment, t(erefore, s*c( taA declarations of petitioners+ (o*ses t(emselves are t(e best proof of t(eir admission t(at t(eir possession of t(e lands t(ey occ*py was not and co*ld not be adverse@ 1( and t(at @t(eir s(anties pose a veritable danger to p*blic (ealt(.@ 1+ '. No error, m*c( less ab*se of a*t(ority or discretion, co*ld be attrib*ted to respondent co*rt+s statements and reasons for denying t(e inF*nction so*g(t by petitioners, as per its order of Marc( #$, ) !$, denying reconsideration, as followsB ... T(e iss*es raised by t(e pleadings to determine w(et(er or not t(e petitioners are entitled to a writ of preliminary inF*nction, or a status quo, in t(e words of t(e petitioners, (ad been resolved several times not only by t(is Co*rt b*t also by t(e

Co*rt of <ppeals, and t(is Co*rt believes t(at insofar as t(e same gro*nds are concerned, t(ey are res 3udicata AAA AAA AAA 6astly, t(e Co*rt does not lose sig(t of t(e fact t(at t(e land in =*estion is p*blic land, in t(e sense t(at it is *ntitled. 9owever, as t(e government now contends, t(e land in =*estion is clot(ed wit( a p*blic p*rpose to be *tili5ed for p*blic service by t(e government. T(is fact (as not been denied and as a matter of fact, t(e petitioners admit t(at t(e land in =*estion is p*blic land. ... ". T(e =*estion of validity or *nconstit*tionality of m*nicipal ordinance No. % -<mended need not be resolved in t(is proceeding, as it s(o*ld first properly be s*bmitted for resol*tion of t(e lower co*rt in t(e action below. S*ffice it to note t(at t(e Solicitor ;eneral appears to (ave correctly stated t(e act*al sit*ation in t(at petitioners do not disp*te t(e a*t(ority of t(e San 7*an co*ncil to pass ordinances providing for t(e s*mmary abatement of p*blic n*isances, and t(at t(e ordinance in =*estion may not be fa*lted for being eA post facto in application since it @does not see, to p*nis( an action done w(ic( was innocent before t(e passage of t(e same. 8at(er, it p*nis(es t(e present and contin*ing act of *nlawf*l occ*pancy of p*blic property or properties intended for p*blic *se.@ 1,<t any rate, t(e decisive point is t(at independently of t(e said ordinance, petitioners+ constr*ctions w(ic( (ave been d*ly fo*nd to be p*blic n*isances per se 0wit(o*t provision for acc*m*lation or disposal of waste matters and constr*cted wit(o*t b*ilding permits contig*o*sly to and t(erefore liable to poll*te one of t(e main water pipelines w(ic( s*pplies potable water to t(e ;reater Manila area2 may be abated wit(o*t F*dicial proceedings *nder o*r Civil Code. 1<s stated in )itchon 's. Aquino, 1. t(e police power of t(e state F*stifies t(e abatement or destr*ction by s*mmary proceedings of p*blic n*isances per se. No error, m*c( less any ab*se of discretion, grave or ot(erwise, may t(erefore be attrib*ted against respondent co*rt in (aving iss*ed its orders denying for imperative reasons of p*blic (ealt( and welfare t(e preliminary inF*nction so*g(t again by petitioners to allow t(em to contin*e occ*pying t(e land in =*estion wit( t(eir condemned constr*ctions and str*ct*res. <CC>84.N;6G, F*dgment is (ereby rendered dismissing t(e petition. T(e temporary restraining order (eretofore iss*ed on <pril &$, ) !$ is (ereby dissolved and s*c( dissol*tion is declared immediately eAec*tory. No prono*ncement as to costs.

TRINI$A$ $E AYA"A, ET A"., vs. ANTONIO !. &ARRETTO, ET A". Febr6ar7 1(, 101,. #.R. No. "500,,

Trent, J.8 T(is is a s*it for a permanent inF*nction against t(e erection and operation of a combined brewery and ice plant on Calle ;eneral Solano in t(e city of Manila, on t(e gro*nd t(at it will be a n*isance. /rom a F*dgment denying t(e relief prayed for, t(e plaintiffs (ave appealed. T(e twenty-two plaintiffs are eit(er residents of property owners on Calle ;eneral Solano. Twelve of t(em are act*al resident of t(e street and of t(ese twelve, siA are lessees of property owned by ot(er plaintiffs. T(is street connects 1c(ag*e and <viles Streets. <ll t(ree parallel t(e Pasig 8iver. 1c(ag*e is almost w(olly given over to ind*strial enterprises, and <viles also (as some factories, etc., *pon it, incl*ding t(e San Mig*el 3rewery. T(is latter brewery is a long establis(ed b*siness, is adFacent to many residences, and is, in fact, closer to some of t(e plaintiffs t(an is t(e proposed brewery. ;eneral Solano (as long been a fas(ionable residence street and t(e dwellings located *pon it are large and eApensive. <t t(e present day, (owever, some of t(ese residence are being *sed for ot(er p*rposes. T(ere are now *pon t(is street a coal yard, a ware(o*se, and a cigarette factory, all very near t(e proposed location of t(e defendantJs brewery, and t(ere are also a p*blic sc(ool and a cl*b on t(e street. 7*st across t(e river is located t(e large power plant of t(e electric railroad and lig(t company, cons*ming abo*t '$ tons of coal per day. To t(e nort( of t(is street are located some sawmills and l*mberyards and to t(e west, across t(e river, are located large ware(o*ses and a large tobacco factory. T(e street is *sed by all ,inds of freig(t ve(icles and a do*ble streetcar trac, traverses its entire lengt(. 6a*nc(es, t*gs and lig(ters are contin*ally navigating t(e Pasig 8iver, w(ic( lies to t(e rear of t(e so*t( side of t(e street. .n ) )4 t(e assessed val*ation of t(e property on t(e so*t( side of t(e street was raised P& per s=*are meter over t(at on t(e nort( side of t(e street beca*se of its increasing val*e for man*fact*ring and ind*strial enterprises. T(ere was testimony by one of t(e plaintiffsJ witnesses, a real estate eApert, t(at in (is opinion t(e w(ole of t(is space wo*ld event*ally be devoted to man*fact*ring and ot(er b*siness *se. .t is attractive for s*c( p*rposes by reason of its transportation facilities by bot( land and water. Cnder t(ese facts we do not t(in, t(at it can be said wit( entire correctness t(at t(e street in =*estion is a strictly residential street. T(at it is not p*rely a residence street is clear, and t(at t(ere are n*mero*s b*sinesses near it in nearly every direction is also clear. T(ere is no do*bt t(at t(e appropriateness of t(e locality selected by t(e defendants as t(e site of t(eir proposed plant m*st (ave considerable bearing *pon t(e =*estion w(et(er t(e plant will create a n*isance. 07oyce on N*isances, sections ' et se=.2 .t appears t(at t(e locality in =*estion is grad*ally being transformed from a fas(ionable residence district into an ind*strial center. .n 1ller vs. Koe(ler 0"% >(io, ')2, it was saidB <ll t(at can be re=*ired of men w(o engage in lawf*l b*siness is t(at t(ey s(all regard t(e fitness of locality. .n t(e residence sections of city, b*siness of no ,ind is desirable or welcome. >n t(e ot(er (and, one w(o becomes a resident of a trading or man*fact*ring neig(bor(ood, or w(o remains, w(ile in t(e marc( of events a residence district grad*ally becomes a trading or man*fact*ring neig(bor(ood, s(o*ld be (eld bo*nd to s*bmit to t(e ordinary annoyances, discomforts and inF*ries w(ic( are fairly incidental to t(e reasonable and general cond*ct of s*c( b*siness in (is c(osen neig(bor(ood. T(e tr*e r*le wo*ld be t(at any discomfort or inF*ry beyond t(is wo*ld be actionableE anyt(ing *p to t(at point wo*ld not be actionable.

.n Stevens vs. 8oc,port ;ranite Co. 0&)" Mass., 4%"2 it was saidB T(e law of n*isance affords no rigid r*le to be applied in all instances. .t is elastic. .t *nderta,es to re=*ire only t(at w(ic( is fair and reasonable *nder all circ*mstances. .n a commonwealt( li,e t(is, w(ic( depends for its material prosperity so largely on t(e contin*ed growt( and enlargement of man*fact*ring of diverse varieties, NeAtreme rig(tsO cannot be enforced. >ne w(o settles in a district, w(ic( possesses nat*ral reso*rces of a special ,ind, cannot pro(ibit t(e development of t(ose reso*rces merely beca*se it may interfere in some degree wit( personal satisfaction or aest(etic enFoyment. No one can move into a =*arter given over to fo*ndries and boiler s(ops and demand t(e =*iet of a farm. >n t(e ot(er (and, t(e noisy or noisome factory cannot wit( imm*nity invade territory stamped by *se for residence. AAA AAA AAA T(e neig(bor(ood in =*estion is of a miAed c(aracter. .t is adFacent to t(e sea, wit( inlets *pon a somew(at bold and roc,y s(ore. >n t(is acco*nt it (as become increasingly attractive for s*mmer residence. T(e plaintiffs and ot(ers near by, and more at a greater distance, (ave estates for t(is p*rpose. Nat*re also (as planted val*able stone =*arries in t(e vicinity, w(ic( (ave been opened and wor,ed, and are *sef*l not only to t(eir owners b*t also in centres of pop*lation w(ere t(ey give bea*ty and strengt( to p*blic b*ildings. T(is circ*mstances renders apposite t(e words of 7ames, 6. 7., in Salvin vs. Nort( 3rancepet( Coal Co., 06. 8. C(., !$', !$ 2. N.f some pict*res=*e (aven opens its arms to invite t(e commerce of t(e world, it is not for t(is co*rt to forbid t(e embrace, alt(o*g( t(e fr*it of it s(o*ld be t(e sig(ts, and so*nds, and smells of a common seaport and s(ipb*ilding town, w(ic( wo*ld drive t(e 4ryads and t(eir masters from t(eir ancient solit*des.O <fter a caref*l consideration of all t(e evidence of record, we (ave come to t(e concl*sion t(at t(e locality s*rro*nding t(e site of t(e proposed plant (as not s*fficiently t(e impress of a residential district as to F*stify *s in (olding t(at t(e plant will be incongr*o*s wit( its s*rro*ndings. T(is concl*sion is made easier in view of t(e fact t(at anot(er brewery is in fact closer to several of t(e plaintiffs t(an t(at of t(e defendants will be. T(e fact t(at t(is latter brewery is not on t(e same street is immaterial. 4istance is w(at co*nts in a matter of t(is ,ind. Noise, smells, and smo,e are no respecters of streets. .s t(ere evidence of record t(at t(e proposed plant will be operated so carelessly as to materially increase t(e noise, smells, and smo,e emanating t(erefromR De t(in, not. >n t(e contrary, t(e evidence is t(at a brewery, properly r*n, is not an *nbearable neig(bor and t(at t(e defendants are installing modern mac(inery in every respect. T(e evidence *pon t(is point is as followsB 4r. Stafford testified t(at t(e smo,e wo*ld be very irritating to say t(e least, b*t admitted t(at (e did not ,now (ow t(e proposed plant was to be operated or t(e ,ind of mac(inery t(at wo*ld be *sed. Mr. Sellner testified t(at from (is own observation of breweries t(ey were more or less noisy and emitted odors. Mr. Kobel, one of t(e plaintiffs and a director and treas*rer of t(e San Mig*el 3rewery, testified t(at from (is ,nowledge of t(at brewery (e wo*ld say t(at t(e mac(inery in t(e new brewery wo*ld ma,e more or less noise and t(at t(ere wo*ld be smells. 9e also admitted t(at (e did not ,now w(at ,ind of mac(inery was to be *sed by t(e new plant nor t(e (eig(t of t(e proposed smo,estac,.

/or t(e defense, Mr. Strong, a mec(anical engineer, w(o was f*rnis(ing t(e engines and boilers for t(e new plant, testified t(at if properly set *p t(ey wo*ld prod*ce practically no vibration. Mr. 8obinson, city engineer of t(e city of Manila, testified t(at considering t(e (eig(t of t(e proposed smo,estac,s, t(e nearby residents s(o*ld not be materially distrib*ted by smo,e, and t(at if t(e mac(inery was properly set *p t(ere s(o*ld be practically no noise. Mr. 4*ffy, c(ief engineer of t(e ;overnment ice plant at Manila, testified t(at (e operated t(ree &$$(orsepower and one )$$-(orsepower boilers, cons*ming approAimately &% to #$ tons of coal per day, b*t w(en all t(e boilers, engines, and mac(inery were in operation, t(ere was no noise or Far discernible o*tside t(e b*ilding. Considering t(e proposed mac(inery for t(e new brewery, (e was of t(e opinion t(at t(ere s(o*ld be absol*tely no noise or Far, and considering t(e (eig(t of t(e proposed smo,estac,, no material annoyance from t(e smo,e. Mr. 6iebenow, inspector of (*lls and boilers, testified t(at if t(e mac(inery was properly (andled, t(ere s(o*ld be no noise or Far eAcept w(en t(e boilers were Nblown o*t,O and t(at t(ere s(o*ld be very little smo,e. 4r. Newberne of t(e P(ilippine 9ealt( Service t(o*g(t t(at, given t(e (eig(t of t(e proposed smo,estac,, t(e smo,e o*g(t of be carried away from t(e vicinity. /rom a sanitary standpoint t(e new brewery wo*ld not interfere materially wit( t(e comfort or enFoyment of nearby residents, alt(o*g( it mig(t from an aest(etic standpoint. 9is department (ad never received any complaints concerning t(e San Mig*el 3rewery. <ttorney 9amilton testified t(at w(ile in Covington, Kent*c,y, (e *sed to pass daily a brewery several times larger t(at t(e San Mig*el 3rewery and never noticed any noises or smells emanating t(erefrom. Mr. Van 9oven, claim agent of t(e Manila 1lectric 8ailroad and 6ig(t Company, testified t(at t(is company cons*med abo*t '$ tons of coal per day, and t(at t(eir smo,estac, was )!& feet (ig(. T(ey (ad never received any complaints from t(e (ospital, occ*pying t(e islands in t(e river abo*t "$$ feet distant, nor from t(e residents on ;eneral Solano. Mr. D(elan, t(e engineer in c(arge of transferring t(e mac(inery of t(e new brewery from 9ong,ong to Manila, testified t(at t(e mac(inery was in a condition so t(at w(en in operation t(ere wo*ld be no noise or Far. T(e smo,estac, was to be so (ig( t(at t(ere wo*ld be no smo,e n*isance. T(e was(ing of bottles wo*ld be done inside a case and co*ld not be (eard ten feet away. T(e (andling of barrels and cooperage wor, wo*ld not ca*se any more noise t(an (andling of any ot(er ,ind of cargo. Mr. 3arretto, director and secretary of t(e new brewery company, w(o (ad originally constr*cted t(e San Mig*el 3rewery, testified t(at t(e coo,ers, vats, etc., were to be inclosed so t(at no f*mes co*ld escape eAcept t(ro*g( vent pipes in t(e roof. D(en (e constr*cted t(e San Mig*el 3rewery, located on Calle <viles, some distance from t(e new brewery, no complaints were made. Mr. Sc(neider, brewmaster of t(e San Mig*el 3rewery, a witness for t(e plaintiffs, testified in reb*ttal t(at t(e cleaning of bottles always made noise, as well as t(e cooperage wor, on t(e ,egs. T(e smell of boiling beer was not disagreeable to (im, b*t it mig(t be to ot(ers w(o were not

acc*stomed to it. Since t(e f*mes t(rown off from a brewery are (eavier t(an air, t(ey always settle, and so it wo*ld not matter if t(ey were forced o*t t(ro*g( t(e roof. < Mr. and Mrs. Sc(*lt5 and a 4r. 3*r,e (ad complained to (im abo*t t(e smo,e, noise, and smells from t(e San Mig*el 3rewery. T(e former lived in front of t(e brewery across t(e street and t(e latter lived alongside of it. 9e (ad been brewmaster of t(e San Mig*el 3rewery for t(e past ten years. Mrs. Sc(*lt5, for t(e plaintiffs, testified t(at w(ile living opposite t(e San Mig*el 3rewery s(e (ad noticed noises and smells emanating from t(e brewery and t(at (er (*sband (ad complained to t(e brewery people twice, telling t(em t(at it was very noisy and dirty. T(ey lived t(ere in front of t(e brewery did not interfere wit( t(em partic*larly. Mr. Calvo lives in front of t(e brewery on t(e opposite side of t(e street. 9e (imself was never dist*rbed by t(e brewery, b*t t(ey noticed t(e noises and smells coming from t(e brewery. .t was sometimes necessary to cover t(e meals to avoid t(e soot from t(e smo,estac,s. D(ile t(e testimony of Mr. Sc(neider, t(e brewmaster of t(e San Mig*el 3rewery, is to t(e effect t(at f*mes from t(e beer ma,ing will settle to t(e gro*nd, (e does not say w(at t(eir intensity is. T(at t(ey co*ld not be great wo*ld seem apparent from t(e fact t(at t(is witness recalled only two complaints t(at (e (ad received from nearby residents of t(e San Mig*el 3rewery d*ring (is ten yearsJ employment t(ere. <gain, Mrs. Sc(*lt5 and Mr. Calvo emp(asi5ed t(e noise rat(er t(an t(e smells, and it seems from t(e testimony of Mr. D(elan t(at t(e noise of t(e bottle was(ing, at least, will not be perceptible o*tside t(e b*ilding by reason of t(is wor, being done inside a case. 9ence, t(e testimony of Mr. Sc(neider t(at t(e noise of t(e bottle was(ing co*ld be (eard o*tside t(e b*ilding evidently was based *pon t(e conditions obtaining in t(e plant w(ere (e is employed. /or t(e defense, t(ere is evidence of engineers and ot(ers t(at t(ere will be no noise, vibrations, or smells, and b*t little, if any, smo,e w(ic( will materially affect nearby residents. De t(in, t(at t(e preponderating weig(t of t(e evidence is to t(e effect t(at t(e new brewery will be operated wit( a minim*m of offense to nearby residents, and t(at in view of t(e semi-ind*strial c(aracter of t(e locality, w(at noise, etc., is prod*ced, cannot be (eld to be *nreasonable. .t is possible t(at plaintiffs, or some of t(em, mig(t prove damages by reason of property depreciation. 3*t all events, t(is is not a proper case for t(e iss*ance of t(e eAtra-ordinary remedy of inF*nction. T(e F*dgment appealed from is affirmed, wit( costs against t(e appellants. So ordered. ERNESTO &ERNA"ES vs. INTER!E$IATE APPE""ATE COURT #.R. No. -1(02501. '6ne ., 10.. PARAS, J.: T(is is a petition for review on certiorari, see,ing to reverse and set aside t(e decision ; of t(e t(en .ntermediate <ppellate Co*rt w(ic( reversed and set aside t(e decision of t(e t(en Co*rt of /irst .nstance of <bra, Second 7*dicial 4istrict, 3ranc( . in t(e consolidated cases <C ;.8. CV Nos. $$)4)-4&-8 entitled <6/>NS> C<4.<M, et al. vs. 18N1ST> 318N<61S, et al. and C>NST<NT1 S.<;<N, et al. v. 16P.4.> S.<;<N et al.

T(e fact*al bac,gro*nd of t(is case as gat(ered from t(e records are as followsB T(e lot in =*estion was originally p*blic land, cadastrally s*rveyed *nder t(e Manabo Cadastre No. #&!-4 and was designated as 6ot No. )4 4. 9enry Siagan is t(e fat(er of bot( 1lpidio Siagan w(ose mot(er is Cagaoay Camiling and <*g*sto Siagan w(ose mot(er is 4agaoan Sawadan. <*g*sto Siagan (as a son named Constante Siagan, one of t(e petitioners in t(is case. 3ot( sons of 9enry Siagan and t(eir s*ccessors-in-interest are t(e contending parties in t(is case, claiming owners(ip of t(e land in =*estion. Cagaoay Camiling died in 4ecember, ) # E 9enry Siagan in ) 4#, 4agaoan Sawadan in September, ) "' and <*g*sto Siagan on >ctober 4,) !'. Petitioners claim t(at 4agaoan Sawadan ac=*ired owners(ip over s*bFect land by means of contin*o*s, adverse and peacef*l possession t(ereof since time immemorial or since ) $%E t(at s(e bro*g(t said property to t(e marriage in ) $% and in ) )% 9enry Siagan, as administrator declared 6ot )4 4 *nder T.4. &%!&, later redeclared in ) &) as T.4. '4%). 9enry Siagan died in ) 4# and in ) 4% 4agaoan Sawadan declared 6ot )4 4 *nder T.4. 4)%! 0Petition, 8ollo, p. ) 2. 4agaoan Sawadan died in ) "'. <*g*sto Siagan in(erited 6ot )4 4 b*t (is son Constante alleging in a 4eed of <bsol*te Sale dated /ebr*ary )", ) "! t(at (e in(erited t(e same from (is late grandmot(er, sold t(e lot in =*estion to t(e Pasimio spo*ses and registered said instr*ment *nder <ct ##44 08ecord on <ppeal, p. '"2. T(e Pasimio spo*ses in t*rn sold t(e same lot to t(e 8oman Cat(olic 3is(op of 3ang*ed, .nc. w(o bo*g(t t(e same for t(e sole p*rpose of disposing t(e same at cost to t(e act*al occ*pants-tenants t(ereon in t(e f*rt(erance of t(e 6and 8eform Program of t(e government 08ecord on <ppeal, p. 4"2 and (ad it registered *nder <ct ##44 08ecord on <ppeal, p. '%2. Said tenants are now t(e petitioners (erein. Petitioners allege t(at t(ey (ave been in possession and (ave tilled 6ot )4 4 as tenants of 4agaoan Sawadan from ) 4 to ) "' and t(ereafter t(ey occ*pied and tilled t(e same lot from ) "' to date. T(e 8oman Cat(olic 3is(op of 3ang*ed in confirmation t(ereof, stated in (is complaint dated 7*ne #, ) !", t(at said petitioners tilled t(e aforesaid parcel of land from ) "% to t(e present, openly, p*blicly, adversely and contin*o*sly in t(e concept of owners 08ecord on <ppeal, p. 4!E 7oint 4ecision, 8ecord on <ppeal, p. &$&2. >n t(e ot(er (and, private respondents maintain t(at 6ot )4 4 was originally owned by 9enry Siagan w(o died intestate in May ) 4#, t(at as early as ) '% t(e owners(ip of said lot was already t(e s*bFect of litigation *nder Civil Case No. $-8!$# in t(e Co*rt of /irst .nstance of <bra wit( 1lpidio Siagan as plaintiff and 4agaoan Sawadan and <*g*sto Siagan as defendants, t(e said land being a part of t(e estate of 9enry Siagan as claimed by 1lpidio SiaganE t(at w(ile said case was pending (earing, 1lpidio Siagan filed in t(e same co*rt, a petition for <dministration Proceedings entitled @.n t(e Matter of t(e .ntestate 1state of 9enry Siagan, deceased, 1lpidio Siagan, petitioner, <*g*sto Siagan, <dministrator, Special Proceedings 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. ))%-)) 2E t(at on <*g*st )4,) "!, abo*t two years after t(e deat( of 4agaoan Sawadan and more or less siA mont(s after Constante Siagan sold 6ot )4 4 to t(e Pasimio spo*ses, 1lpidio Siagan and <*g*sto Siagan m*t*ally recogni5ed and accepted eac( ot(er as t(e only (eirs entitled to in(erit t(e estate of 9enry Siagan and filed a 7oint Motion to Terminate Special Proceedings No. 4$! 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. %&-%#2 and on t(e same date eAec*ted t(e @Memorand*m of <greement@ w(ic( contains several stip*lations among w(ic( areB T(at <*g*sto Siagan and 1lpidio Siagan m*t*ally recogni5ed and agreed t(at t(ey are t(e only legal (eirs of 9enry Siagan entitled to in(erit t(e properties left by t(e latterE t(at <*g*sto Siagan reno*nced, =*it-claimed, waived, ceded and conveyed any interest and

rig(t (e (ad over t(ree lots among w(ic( is 6ot No. )4 4 in favor of 1lpidio Siagan, w(ile t(e latter in t*rn =*it-claimed, waived, ceded and conveyed any interest and rig(t (e (ad over )4 ot(er parcels of land of t(e decedent in favor of <*g*sto Siagan in eAc(ange for said 6ot )4 4 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. %"-%!2. .ndependently of said Memorand*m of <greement, <*g*sto Siagan also eAec*ted a Sworn Statement dated <*g*st &#, ) "! 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. %!-% 2 and a 4eed of 1Atra-7*dicial <dF*dication of 8eal 1state and Q*it Claim dated September &), ) "! 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. ' -"$2 s(owing by t(ese doc*ments t(at (e adF*dicated t(e property in =*estion *nto (imself and assigned, transferred and conveyed all (is rig(ts and interest t(erein in favor of 1lpidio Siagan 04ecision, <C-;.8. CV Nos. $$)4)-4&-8, 8ollo, p. ) 2. 1lpidio Siagan applied in September, ) "! for /ree Patent over said 6ot )4 4 and on <pril &&, ) "%, /ree Patent No. # &) ! was iss*ed. S*bse=*ently, >riginal Certificate of Title No. P-# & covering said lot, was iss*ed in t(e name of 1lpidio Siagan. >n May ', ) !#, or after t(e lapse of five 0'2 years, 1lpidio Siagan sold 6ot )4 4 to t(e spo*ses <lfonso Cadiam and ===>gnay C*llawit, by virt*e to w(ic( >CT No. P-# & was cancelled and in lie* t(ereof, TCT No. T-##% was iss*ed in t(e name of t(e Cadiam spo*ses. /ollowing t(eir p*rc(ase, said spo*ses too, possession of t(e land, fenced it and planted it wit( rice b*t (erein petitioners on <*g*st '. ) !4, forcibly dispossessed t(em t(erefrom, *prooting t(e plants of said co*ple w(o t(en bro*g(t a criminal complaint for t(eft of rice plants against t(e petitioners. T(is led to t(e referral of t(e criminal c(arge to t(e Co*rt of <grarian 8elations b*t beca*se petitioners claimed owners(ip in t(eir answer before t(e C<8, spo*ses Cadiam and >gnay C*llawit filed Civil Case No. % ) for recovery of owners(ip of t(e same lot, in t(e C/. of <bra against said petitioners. .n t*rn, Constante Siagan and (is co-petitioners instit*ted Civil Case No. !" for t(e @<nn*lment and Cancellation of Certificate of Title, 4eclaration of >wners(ip and 4amages and 8econveyance@ claiming t(at >CT No. P-# & covering t(e s*it was fra*d*lently sec*red 04ecision, <C-;.8. CV Nos. $$)4)-4&-8, 8ollo, pp. )%-&$2. T(e parties, t(e s*bFect-matter and iss*es involved being practically .dentical and directly inter-related, by agreement of t(e parties and t(eir opposing co*nsel, a Foint trial was (eld 07oint 4ecision, 8ecord on <ppeal, p. &$&2. T(e lower co*rt ;; rendered a decision dated <*g*st #), ) ! , in favor of t(e petitioners, t(e dispositive portion of w(ic( readsB D9181/>81, F*dgment is rendered as followsB ). 4eclaring t(e patent and >riginal Certificate of Title P-# & covering 6ot No. )4 4 and its transfer certificate null and 'oid and considered cancelled beca*se t(e government cannot grant a patent and certificate over pri'ate property. 0Natividad vs. Nadal, & SC8< ) '2E &. 4eclaring t(e Compromise <greement giving and vesting *pon <tty. 1lpidio Siagan t(e stat*s of a recogni5ed or ac,nowledged nat*ral c(ild of t(e late 9enry Siagan n*ll and voidE #. 4eclaring 1rnesto 3ernales and (is co-plaintiffs as t(e absol*te owners of 6ot No. )4 4 in s*itE

4. 6et copies of t(is decision be f*rnis(ed t(e >ffice of t(e 8egister of 4eeds of 3ang*ed, <bra for its proper information and g*idanceE '. No costs. S> >841814. 4one at 3ang*ed, <bra t(is #)st day of <*g*st, ) ! . 08ecord on <ppeal, pp. &$#&$42. 9erein private respondents moved for reconsideration of said decision w(ic( was denied in t(e >rder of t(e trial co*rt dated 7an*ary !, ) %$ 0 ,!id., p. &&)2. T(e resol*tion of private respondents+ second motion for reconsideration was deferred 0 ,!id., p. &#'2 and a 7oint >rder dated <*g*st ", ) %$ 0,!id., pp. &#'-&#".2 declared t(e Foint decision dated <*g*st #), ) ! final and eAec*tory. >n appeal to t(e Co*rt of <ppeals, t(e Foint decision appealed from was reversed and set aside, and anot(er Foint decision was rendered, t(e dispositive portion of w(ic( readsB D9181/>81, in view of all t(e foregoing considerations, t(e Foint decision appealed from is (ereby 81V18S14 and set aside, and anot(er Foint decision covering t(e said Civil Case Nos. % ) and !" is entered (erein declaring andLor orderingB ). Patent No. # )) ! and >CT No. P-# & in t(e name of 1lpidio Siagan and Mabel 4*magat, and TCT No. T-##% in t(e name of <lfonso Cadiam and >gnay C*llawit as all valid and enforceable against t(e w(ole worldE &. 4efendants-appellees in Civil Case No. % )-1rnesto 3ernales, 3ernardo 3adilla, Cresencio 3adilla, ;*illardo Collado, Man*el Collado, Pedro Peredo and <ngela Peredo, w(o are among t(e plaintiffs-appellees in Civil Case No. ", to vacate 6ot )4 4 or t(e lot in =*estion, and deliver peacef*l possess on t(ereof to t(e appellants spo*ses <lfonso 4. Cadiam and >gnay C*llawit, enFoining permanently said appellees from molesting said appellants in t(e premisesE and #. T(e appellees to pay t(e appellants t(e val*e of '$$ b*ndles of palay, or P&,$$$.$$ per crop a year from ) !4 w(en t(ey were dispossessed of t(e premises, *ntil t(e peacef*l delivery t(ereof to t(e latter. No costs. S> >841814. 08ollo, pp. #$-#)2 9ence, t(is petition. .n t(e resol*tion of November 4, ) %', t(e petition was given d*e co*rse and t(e parties were re=*ired to s*bmit t(eir respective memoranda 08ollo, p. !!2. Petitioner raised t(e following errorsB 0a M b2 T(e .ntermediate <ppellate Co*rt erred in (olding t(e validity of t(e patent and title by reason of Sec. 44, C< )4) amended by 8< #%!& 08ollo, p. %2

0c2 T(e <ppellate Co*rt erred in applying to t(e case at bar, t(e Meralco 4octrine, w(ere Meralco is obvio*sly dis=*alified in t(e land registration application *nder <rt. U.V. 0d2 T(e <ppellate Co*rt erred in (olding t(at >CT P-# & and t(e Transfer Certificate are valid 08ollo, pp. "-)$2. T(e pivotal iss*e in t(is case is, w(o (as a better title over 6ot No. )4 4, t(e spo*ses <lfonso Cadiam and >gnay C*llawit or 1rnesto 3ernales and (is co-plaintiffs. Petitioners admitted t(at t(e land in disp*te was originally p*blic land. <ccording to t(em it became private land beca*se of t(e long possession of 4agaoan Sawadan. T(ey allege t(at s(e (ad been in possession since ) $% and t(at s(e bro*g(t said lot to t(e marriage w(ic( as will be noted was allegedly also in ) $% 08ollo, p. 42 giving credence to t(e fact t(at said lot was formerly owned, occ*pied and possessed by 9enry Siagan since time immemorial, as agreed and stip*lated by t(e parties d*ring t(e pre-trial conference. .t (as been establis(ed beyond disp*te t(at 1lpidio and <*g*sto Siagan m*t*ally recogni5ing eac( ot(er as t(e only (eirs of 9enry Siagan filed a 7oint Motion to Terminate Special Proceedings No. 4$! and eAec*ted t(e @Memorand*m of <greement@ w(ic( stip*lated among ot(er t(ings t(at <*g*sto Siagan reno*nced, =*it-claimed, waived, ceded and conveyed any interest and rig(t (e (ad over t(ree lots w(ic( incl*de 6ot No. )4 4 in eAc(ange of fo*rteen 0)42 ot(er parcels of land of t(e decedent w(ic( 1lpidio Siagan =*it-claimed, waived, ceded and conveyed in favor of <*g*sto Siagan. .ndependently of said Memorand*m of <greement, <*g*sto Siagan also eAec*ted a Sworn Statement and a 4eed of 1Atra-7*dicial <dF*dication of 8eal 1state and Q*it Claim, to t(e effect t(at <*g*sto Siagan adF*dicated t(e property in =*estion *nto (imself and assigned, transferred and conveyed all (is rig(ts and interests t(erein in favor of 1lpidio Siagan. >t(erwise stated, 1lpidio Siagan stepped into t(e s(oes of <*g*sto Siagan. Petitioners claim t(at respondent 1lpidio Siagan, *sing (is ,nowledge of law, *nd*ly too, advantage of <*g*sto Siagan and ind*ced t(e latter to enter into said Memorand*m of <greement. 3esides t(eir fail*re to add*ce evidence to s*pport t(eir contention, t(e same is negated by t(e fact t(at said memorand*m and accompanying doc*ments w(ic( (ave been d*ly and lawf*lly eAec*ted, are notari5ed doc*ments, made p*rs*ant to <*g*sto and 1lpidio Siagan+s amicable settlement of t(eir co*rt litigation. No less important is t(e fact t(at said memorand*m and adF*dication and =*itclaim of t(e lot in =*estion for a made follow a val*able consideration, t(at is in eAc(ange for w(atever rig(ts and interests 1lpidio may (ave over fo*rteen 0)42 parcels of land w(ic( (e ceded, =*it-claimed and transferred to <*g*sto Siagan. Cnder t(e circ*mstances, t(e Co*rt of <ppeals correctly observed t(at w(et(er 6ot )4 4 descended from 9enry Siagan as claimed by private respondents or from 4agaoan Sawadan, t(e mot(er of <*g*sto Siagan as claimed by t(e petitioners, it is *ndeniable t(at <*g*sto Siagan (ad already =*it-claimed, ceded and conveyed w(atever rig(ts or interest (e (ad over said lot in favor of 1lpidio Siagan. 3eca*se of s*c( waiver and =*it claim, 1lpidio Siagan became t(e sole claimant of 6ot )4 4. 9e applied for and was granted /ree Patent No. # )) ! and >riginal Certificate of Title No.P-# & for said lot. <fter t(e lapse of five years from and after t(e iss*ance of said patent and title, 1lpidio Siagan sold said lot to t(e spo*ses <lfonso Cadiam and >gnay C*llawit in w(ose favor Transfer

Certificate of Title No.T-##% was iss*ed by t(e 8egister of 4eeds of <bra. .n t(e case at bar, t(e /ree Patent was granted to 1lpidio Siagan, t(e very person w(o as s*ccessor-in-interest of <*g*sto Siagan wit( a claim of contin*o*s and adverse possession in t(e concept of owner since time immemorial or since ) $% t(ro*g( t(e latter+s predecessors-in-interest, is entitled to s*bFect land. <n >riginal Certificate of Title was iss*ed in favor of 1lpidio Siagan. <s (eld by t(is Co*rt, once a (omestead patent granted in accordance wit( t(e P*blic 6and <ct is registered *nder t(e Torrens System, t(e certificate of title iss*ed in virt*e of said patent (as t(e force and effect of a Torrens Title *nder t(e 6and 8egistration <ct. Corollary t(ereto, t(e 4irector of Patents, being a p*blic officer, (as in (is favor t(e pres*mption of reg*larity in iss*ing t(e =*estioned (omestead patent 0.glesia ni Cristo vs. 9on. 7*dge, C/. of N*eva 1ciFa, 3r. ., )&# SC8< ')! H) %#I2. <s aforestated, t(e Cadiam spo*ses to w(om a Transfer Certificate of Title was iss*ed after t(e p*rc(ase of t(e lot from 1lpidio Siagan for a val*able consideration as stated in t(e 4eed and w(o (ad no ,nowledge of any flaw or defect of t(e title at t(e time of t(e p*rc(ase, are evidently as r*led by t(e Co*rt of <ppeals, innocent p*rc(asers for val*e and above all considerations, are entitled to t(e protection of t(e law. .n contrast, petitioners allegedly ac=*ired s*bFect property by virt*e of t(e sale made by Constante Siagan siA mont(s before t(e eAec*tion of t(e Memorand*m of <greement and t(e ot(er doc*ments above-mentioned. Constante Siagan, claiming to (ave in(erited 6ot )4) 4 from (is grandmot(er, sold said lot to t(e Pasimio spo*ses, w(o later sold t(e same to t(e 8oman Cat(olic 3is(op of 3ang*ed, .nc. and t(e latter in t*rn sold t(e same to t(e petitioners. 3*t t(e a*t(ority of Constante Siagan to sell said lot was wanting. T(e owners(ip and possession of 4agaoan Sawadan over 6ot )4 4 were transmitted t(ro*g( (ereditary s*ccession to <*g*sto Siagan, (er son, and not to Constante Siagan, (er grandson. Constante cannot claim to (ave in(erited t(e same in ) "! beca*se (is fat(er <*g*sto Siagan w(o entered into t(e amicable settlement and =*it claim wit( 1lpidio Siagan was still living and (e died only in >ctober, ) !'. M*c( less is t(ere any doc*ment s(owing t(at said property was transmitted or ceded to (im eit(er by 4agaoan Sawadan or <*g*sto Siagan. T(*s, t(e sale made by non-owner Constante Siagan and all s*bse=*ent sales made t(ere*nder, are n*ll and void. .t is tr*e t(at t(e Pasimio spo*ses and t(e 8oman Cat(olic 3is(op of 3ang*ed, .nc. claimed to (ave registered t(eir sales *nder <ct ##44 b*t it is specifically provided *nder said law t(at s*c( registration s(all be @*nderstood to be wit(o*t preF*dice to a t(ird party w(o (as a better rig(t. 0Section ) 4 of t(e <dministrative Code, as amended by <ct ##442. .n t(e case at bar, t(e Cadiam spo*ses w(o were fo*nd by t(e Co*rt of <ppeals as innocent p*rc(asers for val*e wit( a Transfer Certificate of Title *nder t(e Torrens System in t(eir names, (ave evidently a better rig(t t(an (erein petitioners. P81M.S1S C>NS.41814, t(ere appearing no pla*sible reason to dist*rb t(e findings and concl*sions of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals, t(e instant petition is 41N.14 and t(e decision appealed from is (ereby <//.8M14. S> >841814. FE"ICI$A$ 1$A. $E CA&RERA vs. COURT OF APPEA"S #.R. No. 12.+(-. Febr6ar7 %, 100TORRES, 'R., J.8

<ssailed in t(is Petition for 8eview on 5ertiorari is t(e 4ecisionH)I of t(e respondent Co*rt of <ppeals dated 7an*ary !, ) # in C<-;.8. No. &&4$!-CV, t(e dispositive portion of w(ic( readsB ND9181/>81, t(e decision of t(e lower co*rt is (ereby 81V18S14 and F*dgment is (ereby entered ordering defendants /elicidad Vda. de Cabrera and Mary,ane Cabrera to vacate t(e portion of 6ot &&#% occ*pied by t(em and s*rrender possession t(ereof to plaintiff. S> >841814.O 8eversed by t(e foregoing prono*ncements was t(e decision H&I of t(e 8egional Trial Co*rt, 3ranc( !, 3aganga, 4avao >riental in Civil Case No. #! , an action for OQ*ieting of Title to 8eal Property, 4amages wit( Preliminary .nF*nction.O T(e trial co*rtJs disposition readsB ND9181/>81, t(e plaintiff is (ereby orderedB 0a2 to eAec*te a reconveyance wit(in t(irty 0#$2 days after t(is decision s(all (ave become final and eAec*tory in favor of defendant /elicidad Vda. 4e Cabrera corresponding only to t(at portion of 6ot No. &&# act*ally and p(ysically possessed and occ*pied by t(e defendant as seen from t(e s,etc( plan of 1ngr. 1necio Magno 01A(. V&J2 and pinpointed and identified d*ring t(e oc*lar investigation as to its eAtent and bo*ndaries of t(e said portion bo*g(t by defendants /elicidad Vda. 4e Cabrera from /elicidad Teo,emianE 0b2 To reimb*rse defendants for litigation eApenses and attorneyJs fees in t(e amo*nt of P!,$$$.$$E and 0c2 To pay t(e cost. S> >841814.O De are restating t(e facts as determined by t(e appellate co*rt, 'i<B N>n 7an*ary )", ) '$, a 4eed of Sale 01A(. 32 was eAec*ted by 4aniel Teo,emian and <lbertana Teo,emian in favor of <ndres >rais over a parcel of *nregistered land sit*ated at <beFod, Cateel, 4avao >riental wit( an area described as !.#!&$ (ectares. T(e property was owned in common by 4aniel and <lbertana and t(eir sister /elicidad Teo,emian, (aving in(erited t(e same from t(eir late fat(er, 4omingo Teo,emian. 9owever, t(e 4eed of Sale was not signed by /elicidad, alt(o*g( (er name was printed t(erein as one of t(e vendors. >n 7an*ary &", ) '$, t(e parcel of land was s*rveyed in t(e name of Virgilia >rais, da*g(ter of t(e vendee <ndres >rais, and denominated as 6ot No. &&# , P6S-&%!, Cateel Cadastre. <s s*rveyed, t(e property (ad an area of )).)$$$ (ectares. >n 7*ne &4, ) '!, Virgilia >rais was iss*ed /ree Patent No. V-! $% . >riginal Certificate of Title No. P-)$ $% was iss*ed in (er name 01A(. <2. >n 7*ly &!, ) !&, <lberto 0sic. <lbertana2 Teo,emian eAec*ted a 4eed of <bsol*te Sale conveying to 1lano Cabrera, (*sband of /elicidad Cabrera, V>N1 9<6/ P>8T.>N >/ 6>T N>. &&# , Cad&%!, eastern portion, containing an area of /./TG /.V1 T9>CS<N4 /.V1 9CN4814 T1N 0'',')$2 SQC<81 M1T18S, more or lessJ 01A(. #2, w(ic( portion s*pposedly corresponded to t(e one-t(ird s(are in 6ot &&# of /elicidad Teo,emian w(o was not a party to t(e 4eed of Sale earlier eAec*ted by (er brot(er and sister in favor of <ndres >rais, Virgilia >raisJ predecessor-in-

interest. .t was eAplained by /elicidad Cabrera t(at t(e 4eed of Sale was signed by <lbertana Teo,emian, not by /elicidad Teo,emian, beca*se t(e w(ole of 6ot &&# was adF*dicated to <lbertana in a decision of a cadastral co*rt dated 7*ne %, ) "' as evidenced by a Certification of an officer-in-c(arge of t(e >ffice of t(e Cler, of Co*rt, 8TC, 3r. !, 3aganga, 4avao >riental 01A(. 42. /elicidad Cabrera and (er (*sband immediately too, possession of t(e western portion of 6ot &&# . .n ) !4 and ) !%, Virgilia >raisJ brot(ers, 8odolfo and 7immy >rais went to Cateel, 4avao >riental and confronted t(e Cabreras of t(e latterJs alleged encroac(ment and illegal occ*pation of t(eir sisterJs land, b*t no concrete action on t(e matter was p*rs*ed by Virgilia >rais *ntil /ebr*ary )), ) %% w(en s(e filed Civil Case No. #! against /elicidad Cabrera, now a widow, and (er da*g(ter Mary,ane Cabrera for VQ*ieting of Title to 8eal Property, 4amages wit( Preliminary Mandatory .nF*nction.J T(e complaint, w(ic( was amended on 7*ne &&, ) %% by incl*ding /elicidad Teo,emian as party defendant 0pp. 4&-4!, 8ecords2, alleged t(at sometime in ) !& and ) !# t(e late 1lano Cabrera and defendant /elicidad Cabrera, ,nowing t(at 6ot &&# was already registered in t(e name of t(e plaintiff, prepared a doc*ment of sale and (ad /elicidad Teo,emian sign it conveying a portion of said lot to t(em as described in t(e S,etc( Map 0<nneA 4 of t(e Complaint2, after w(ic( t(ey entered and possessed said portion and enFoyed t(e fr*its t(ereon. Plaintiff f*rt(er averred t(at by reason of t(e doc*ment of sale and t(e declaration of t(e property involved in t(e name of defendant /elicidad Vda. 4e Cabrera, t(ere created a clo*d of do*bt on t(e formerJs title on said property. Plaintiff prayed as followsB VD9181/>81, premises considered, plaintiff t(ro*g( t(e *ndersigned co*nsel respectf*lly prays t(is 9onorable Co*rt t(atB a2 <fter d*e notice and (earing, a Drit of Preliminary Mandatory .nF*nction be iss*ed restraining t(e defendants from f*rt(er dispossessing t(e plaintiff of t(e land in =*estionE b2 >rdering t(e defendants to pay Fointly t(e plaintiff t(e amo*nt of not less t(an SiAteen T(o*sand Two 9*ndred 0P)",&$$2 as total val*e of t(e rice prod*ced from t(e riceland in =*estion, and t(e amo*nt of Twenty >ne T(o*sand SiA 9*ndred 0P&),"$$.$$2 Pesos as t(e total proceeds of t(e n*ts of t(e cocon*t land in =*estionE c2 T(e 4efendants be ordered to pay t(e plaintiff t(e amo*nt of Twenty T(o*sand 0P&$,$$$.$$2 Pesos and Ten T(o*sand 0P)$,$$$.$$2 Pesos as litigation eApensesE d2 T(e defendants be ordered to pay SiA T(o*sand 0P",$$$.$$2 Pesos for attorneyJs feesE /o*r 9*ndred 0P4$$.$$2 Pesos as eApenses for every appearance in Co*rtE e2 T(e doc*ment of sale eAec*ted by /elicidad Teo,emian and t(e TaA 4eclarations iss*ed to t(e late 1lano Cabrera and /elicidad Vda. 4e Cabrera and t(e s*bse=*ent TaA 4eclaration creating a clo*d of do*bt on t(e title, possession, rig(ts and interest be declared n*ll and void for being fra*d*lent and wit(o*t any legal basis and ineAistentE and f2 S*c( ot(er reliefs and remedies w(ic( t(is 9onorable Co*rt may deem F*st, proper, and e=*itable in t(e premises.J

.n t(eir answer wit( co*nterclaim 0pp.)$-)%, 8ecords2, defendants alleged t(at t(ey ac=*ired a portion of 6ot &&# in good fait( and for val*eE t(at said portion was owned by /elicidad Teo,emian w(o was not a party to t(e 4eed of Sale eAec*ted by 4aniel and <lbertana Teo,emian on 7an*ary )", ) '$ in favor of <ndres >rais over 6ot &&# E t(at not (aving signed t(e 4eed of Sale, /elicidad Teo,emianJs one-t(ird s(are in 6ot &&# co*ld not (ave been legally conveyed to <ndres >raisE t(at Virgilia >rais 0s*ccessor-in-interest of <ndres >rais2 committed fra*d in incl*ding t(e portion owned by /elicidad Teo,emian in (er applying for free patent over 6ot &&# is concerned p*rs*ant to <rt. )4'" of t(e Civil CodeE and t(at plaintiff is g*ilty of lac(es for not initiating an action against defendants to recover t(e western portion of 6ot &&# despite plaintiffJs ,nowledge of defendantJs ac=*isition t(ereof in ) !&, as in fact it was only in ) %% w(en t(e complaint for =*ieting of title was filed in co*rt. 4efendants prayed, t(*sB ND9181/>81, t(is 9onorable Co*rt, after d*e notice and (earing on t(e merits of t(is caseE to iss*e order or ordersE ). /inding t(e defendants as t(e rig(tf*l, lawf*l, and legal owner of t(at portion w(ic( was sold to t(em by /elicidad Teo,emian and w(ic( was incl*ded in t(e title of plaintiffE &. To find t(at t(e plaintiff did not own t(e said portion and t(at t(ey (ave personal ,nowledge of t(e same w(en t(e plaintiff filed and sec*red t(e title *nder t(e <dministrative ProceedingE #. /inding t(at t(e plaintiff is only (olding t(e title to t(at portion only in an implied tr*st in favor of t(e real ownerE 4. /inding t(e plaintiff legally obligated to ca*se t(e segregation of t(e portion at t(eir eApense and deliver formally t(e said portion to t(e real owners, t(e defendants. '. To order t(e plaintiff to eAec*te, prepare and or ma,e any instr*ment or doc*ment to finally vest in t(e 4efendants absol*te, clear and flawless title or owners(ip over t(e portion w(ic( t(e plaintiff (olds title in tr*st in defendantJs favor. ". To >rder t(e Plaintiff to pay act*al damages in t(e s*m of P&,$$$.$$ as litigation eApense and <ttorneyJs fees in t(e s*m of P',$$$.$$ in favor of defendantsE !. To direct t(e plaintiff to acco*nt for t(e s(are of t(e real owner of t(e portion of land illegally c*ltivated and planted by plaintiff to rice in favor of /16.C.4<4 T1>K1M.<N to be paid t(r* t(e 4efendants w(o are t(e owners, w(ic( consisted in >N1 T9.84 >/ T91 8.C1 9<8V1ST every year since t(e year ) '$ to ) !& w(en t(e portion was sold and c*ltivated by defendant based on t(e comp*tation of income by t(e plaintiff in Paragrap( )", a paragrap( in t(e Second Ca*se of <ction of t(e complaintE and to grant t(e defendants s*c( ot(er reliefs and remedies proper and e=*itable in t(e premises.O H#I >n <pril &!, ) % , t(e lower co*rt rendered F*dgment in favor of defendants and against t(e plaintiff, r*ling t(at t(e latter can no longer recover t(e western portion of 6ot &&# conveyed in ) !& by /elicidad Teo,emian in favor of t(e late 1lano Cabrera and /elicidad Cabrera d*e to lac(es. .n s*pport of its findings, t(e trial co*rt referred to t(e Co*rtJs prono*ncements in 6ola 's. Co*rt of <ppeals,H4I w(ere it was (eld t(at alt(o*g( t(e defense of prescription is *navailing to t(e

petitioners, beca*se, admittedly, t(e title to t(e s*bFect lot was still registered in t(e name of t(e respondent, still t(e petitioners (ave ac=*ired title to it by virt*e of t(e e=*itable principle of lac(es d*e to t(e respondentJs fail*re to assert (er claim and owners(ip for t(irty-two yearsE and in 8ep*blic 's. Co*rt of <ppealsH'I t(at, w(ile it is tr*e t(at by t(emselves taA receipts and declaration of owners(ip for taAation p*rposes are not incontrovertible evidence of owners(ip, t(ey become strong evidence of owners(ip ac=*ired by prescription w(en accompanied by proof of act*al possession of t(e propertyE and in Mig*el 's. Catalino,H"I t(at even granting appellantJs proposition t(at no prescription lies against t(eir fat(ersJ recorded title, t(eir passivity and inaction for more t(an t(irty fo*r years F*stifies t(e defendant appellee in setting *p t(e e=*itable defense of lac(es in (is own be(alf. T(e respondent Co*rt of <ppeals reversed s*c( findings *pon appeal. 1ven as t(e appellate co*rt observed t(at t(e registration made by t(e plaintiffs was fra*d*lent insofar as it involved t(e one-t(ird interest of /elicidad Teo,emian, w(ic( was not incl*ded in t(e sale eAec*ted by t(em and <lbertana and 4aniel Teo,emian, it nevert(eless *p(eld its effects, on t(e F*stification t(at t(e defendantJs action for reconveyance based on an implied tr*st (ad already been barred by prescription. /*rt(ermore, t(e action of t(e plaintiffs is not barred by lac(es, as was (eld by t(e lower co*rt. Said t(e appellate co*rtB NDe disagree wit( t(e lower co*rtJs r*ling t(at plaintiff is barred from bringing an action for recovery of owners(ip. Parent(etically, w(ile t(e complaint filed by plaintiff is designated as one for =*ieting of title, t(e allegations t(erein s(ow t(at it is act*ally for recovery of owners(ipLpossession. /irst. T(e 4eed of <bsol*te Sale dated May &!, ) !& 01A(. #2 eAec*ted by <lbertana Teo,emian in favor of 1lcano Cabrera over t(e portion of '',')$ s=*are meters of 6ot &&#% w(ic( allegedly pertained to t(e one-t(ird interest of /elicidad Teo,emian did not convey any title to 1lcano Cabrera, ass*ming t(at /elicidad Teo,emian still owned a one-t(ird portion of 6ot &&#% w(ic( was already registered in plaintiffJs name, considering t(at <lbertana did not (ave any a*t(ority from /elicidad Teo,emian to effect s*c( conveyance. Conse=*ently, defendants /elicidad vda. 4e Cabrera and Mary,ane Cabrera (ad ac=*ired no title *pon w(ic( to anc(or t(eir claim of owners(ip over t(e one-t(ird portion. S*c( being t(e case, plaintiffs cannot be barred by lac(es from instit*ting t(e action to =*iet title against defendants AAA Second. T(ere was no allegation, m*c( less proof, t(at 6ot &&# (ad been partitioned among t(e co-owners 4aniel, <lbertana, and /elicidad, all s*rnamed Teo,emian, before t(e land was sold to <ndres >rais in ) '$ w(en t(e same was still *nregistered. T(is being t(e case, and ass*ming t(at /elicidad Teo,emian (ad retained owners(ip over an *ndivided one-t(ird portion of 6ot &&# despite its being titled in plaintiffJs name in ) '%, /elicidad Teo,emian co*ld only dispose (er *ndivided interest, not a definite portion described in t(e 4eed of Sale eAec*ted on 7*ly &!, ) !& 01A(. #2 Nas eastern partO. Dorse, t(e s*pposed vendee, 1lcano Cabrera, and (er s*ccessors-ininterest, defendants /elicidad vda. de Cabrera and Mary,ane Cabrera, occ*pied t(e western portion of 6ot &&# , not t(e eastern portion w(ic( was t(e s*bFect of t(e sale. T(eir occ*pation of a definite portion of an *ndivided property, wit(o*t any color of title, co*ld not (ave ripened into owners(ip on t(e principle of lac(es. T(ird. <s testified to by 7immy >rais, plaintiffJs brot(er, it was only in ) !4 w(en plaintiff came to ,now t(at (er property was occ*pied by 1lcano Cabrera. <ccording to 7immy, (e and (is elder brot(er 4r. 8odolfo >rais went to t(e (o*se of 1lcano Cabrera t(ree times in ) !4 and in ) !

complaining of t(e latterJs occ*pancy of t(eir sisterJs property. 7immy f*rt(er declared t(at after 1lcano Cabrera was s(own plaintiffJs title to t(e property, 1lcano Cabrera proposed a relocation s*rvey of t(e area to determine w(et(er t(e premises occ*pied by (im were incl*ded in t(e plaintiffJs title 0T.S.N. pp. # -44, 7an*ary #, ) % 2. .t appears, (owever, t(at not(ing came o*t of t(e proposal to cond*ct a relocation s*rvey. /rom t(e time plaintiff became aware of CabreraJs possession of t(e western portion of 6ot &&# , w(ic( was in ) !4, *p to t(e time s(e instit*ted t(e action for =*ieting of title in ) %%, only fo*rteen 0)42 years (ad elapsed. T(is case, t(erefore, (as no congr*ency wit( t(ose cases w(ere t(e S*preme Co*rt r*led t(at t(e registered owner is barred by lac(es from recovering (is property. T(*s, in 6ola 's. Co*rt of <ppeals 0)4' SC8< 4# 2, t(e petitioners ac=*ired title to t(e land owned by respondent by virt*e of t(e e=*itable principles of lac(es d*e, according to t(e S*preme Co*rt, to respondentJs Vfail*re to assert (er claims and owners(ip for t(irty-two 0#&2 years.J .n Mig*el 's. Catalino 0&" SC8< &#42, t(e S*preme Co*rt said t(at appellantJs Vpassivity and inaction for more t(an #4 years 0) &%-) "&2 F*stifies t(e defendantappellee in setting *p t(e e=*itable defense of lac(es in (is be(alf.J .n MeFia 's. ;ampomana 0)$$ P(il &!!2, it was (eld t(at Vt(e original ownerJs rig(t to recover bac, t(e possession of t(e property and title t(ereto from t(e defendant (as by t(e long period of #! years and by t(e patenteeJs inaction and neglect been converted into a stale demand.J 6ac(es, in a general sense, is fail*re or neglect, for an *nreasonable and *neAplained lengt( of time, to do t(at w(ic(, by t(e eAercise of d*e diligence, co*ld or s(o*ld (ave been done earlierE it is negligence or omission to assert a rig(t wit(in a reasonable time, warranting a pres*mption t(at t(e party entitled to assert it 0TiFam 's. Sibong(anoy, #& SC8< & 2. Since imprescriptibility is one of t(e basic feat*res of a Torrens title, it is not an ordinary delay in asserting oneJs rig(t t(at will give rise to t(e application of t(e principle of lac(es, ot(erwise, registered title can easily be defeated by prescription. T(is is precisely t(e reason w(y, in t(e cases cited, t(e delay or inaction by t(e registered owners in asserting t(eir rig(ts was considered *nreasonable and *neAplained beca*se it too, t(em from #& to #! years to do so. .n contrast, t(e delay in t(e case at bar was only fo*rteen years. D(ile possession of defendants /elicidad vda. 4e Cabrera and Mary,ane Cabrera co*ld not (ave ripened into owners(ip as already disc*ssed, t(ey are possessors in good fait( of t(e portion occ*pied by t(em and, t(erefore, entitled to t(e benefits accorded by t(e Civil Code as s*c(.O H!I Sisters /elicidad vda. de Cabrera and Mary,ane Cabrera, toget(er wit( /elicidad Teo,emian are now before t(e Co*rt as Petitioners in t(is Petition for 8eview on 5ertiorari, see,ing relief from t(e respondent co*rtJs decision, assigning as errors t(e followingB A. 81SP>N41NT C>C8T >/ <PP1<6S 18814 .N 8C6.N; T9<T P8.V<T1 81SP>N41NTJS C>MP6<.NT /.614 .N ) %% />8 QC.1T.N; >/ T.T61 D9.C9 <CTC<66G .S >N1 />8 81C>V18G >/ >DN18S9.P <N4 P>SS1SS.>N <S />CN4 3G 81SP>N41NT C>C8T .S N>T 3<8814 3G 6<C91S 31C<CS1B ). < P18.>4 >/ #$ G1<8S 9<4 16<PS14 /8>M ) '% D91N T>881NS T.T61 D<S .SSC14 T> P8.V<T1 81SP>N41NT T> ) %% D91N 918 C>MP6<.NT 316>D D<S /.614 4C8.N; D9.C9 P18.>4 >/ T.M1 T91 P8>P18TG 9<S 311N .N >P1N, C>NT.NC>CS <N4 <4V18S1 P>SS1SS.>N >/ T91 >8.;.N<6 >DN18, /16.C.4<4 T1>K1M.<N, /8>M ) '%, >8 1V1N 1<86.18 .N ) 4) D91N S91 .N918.T14 T91 P8>P18TG, T> ) !& D91N S91 S>64 .T T> T91 C<3818<S D9> C>NT.NC14 T91 P8.>8 P>SS1SS.>N CNT.6 ) %% D91N P8.V<T1 81SP>N41NTJS C>MP6<.NT D<S /.614. &. <SSCM.N; <8;C1N4> 81SP>N41NT C>C8TJS 9>64.N; T9<T >N6G )4 G1<8S 9<4

16<PS14 C>CNT14 /8>M ) !4 D91N C<3818<SJ P>SS1SS.>N D<S QC1ST.>N14 3G P8.V<T1 81SP>N41NTJS 38>T918S, ST.66 T9<T P18.>4 C>NST.TCT1S 6<C91S. &. 81SP>N41NT C>C8T >/ <PP1<6S 18814 .N 9>64.N; T9<T 6<C91S 4>1S N>T <PP6G 31C<CS1 D9<T D<S S>64 T> T91 C<3818<S D<S < 41/.N.T1 P>8T.>N >/ T91 C>MMCN.TG P8>P18TG 31/>81 P<8T.T.>N, 91NC1, V>.4 <N4 T9<T <6318T<N< T1>K1M.<N D9> S.;N14 T91 4>CCM1NT >/ S<61 .N /<V>8 >/ T91 C<3818<S 9<4 N> <CT9>8.TG /8>M 918 S.ST18-C>->DN18 /16.C.4<4 T1>K1M.<N T> 1U1CCT1 T91 4114 >/ C>NV1G<NC1.H%I T(e bone of t(e petitionerJs contention rests on t(e alleged waiver of t(e plaintiff to recover any interest s(e (ad in t(e one-t(ird portion of t(e property in(erited by 4aniel, <lbertana and /elicidad Teo,emian from t(eir late fat(er, 4omingo, d*e to t(e long period of time w(ic( lapsed from t(e time t(e plaintiffJs title was registered *ntil t(e action for =*ieting of title was instit*ted. De find merit in t(e petition. <t t(e o*tset, it m*st be observed t(at t(e Certificate of Title of t(e plaintiff, w(ic( was derived from /ree Patent No. V-! $% , iss*ed in t(e name of Virgilia >rais, leaves m*c( to be desired in propriety, considering t(at t(e 4eed of Sale eAec*ted by 4aniel and <lbertana Teo,emian, on one (and and <ndres >rais on t(e ot(er, did not bear t(e signat*re of /elicidad Teo,emian, and t(erefore, did not cover t(e latterJs s(are. .t was t(e respondent appellate co*rt w(ic( observed t(at Nt(e registration of t(e plaintiffJs title over t(e s*bFect property was fra*d*lent insofar as it involved t(e one-t(ird interest of /elicidad Teo,emian w(o did not sign t(e 4eed of Sale in favor of plaintiffJs predecessor-in-interest and, t(erefore, t(e latter (eld t(at portion as a tr*stee of an implied tr*st for t(e benefit of /elicidad, p*rs*ant to <rt. )4'" of t(e Civil Code.O H INeedless to state, t(ese concl*sions, being matters of fact, are entitled to o*r f*ll affirmation, since t(ey are congr*ent wit( t(e findings of t(e trial co*rt, t(*sB N.t wo*ld seem from t(e facts of t(e case t(at t(e basis of t(e rig(t of plaintiff over t(e land in litigation specifically 6ot No. &&# now titled in t(e name of t(e plaintiff, located at 3*aya(on, <beFod, Cateel, 4avao >riental, proceeded from t(e 4eed of Sale eAec*ted by 4aniel Teo,emian and <lbertana Teo,emian on 7an*ary )", ) '$ ac,nowledged before 7*dge Proserador 4anao as Notary 1A >ficio. Ta,ing a (ard loo, over t(e aforesaid deed of sale 01A(. N3O2 t(e said doc*ment apparently incl*ded t(e t(ird (eir of 4omingo Teo,emian /elicidad Teo,emian beca*se (er name was typewritten toget(er wit( (er sister <lbertana and brot(er 4aniel all s*rnamed Teo,emian in t(e said doc*ment. <gain t(is fact will come to mind t(at t(e vendee <ndres >rais was anticipating at t(e time /elicidad Teo,emian will also sell (er s(are in t(is portion of land 06ot No. &&# 2 w(ic( at t(e time of t(e sale it was still *nregistered land. T(e non-signing of /elicidad Teo,emian over (er typewritten name in t(is deed of sale 01A(. N3O2 will attest to t(e fact t(at s(e did not sell (er s(are in t(e lot in =*estion. <fter t(is sale t(e vendee <ndres >rais t(ro*g( (is encargado Melecio Capilitan and later Servillano <barca immediately too, possession of t(e two t(ird portion of said parcel of land respecting t(e t(ird portion owned by /elicidad Teo,emian.O H)$I 9owever, t(e appellate co*rt stated f*rt(er t(at nonet(eless, t(e plaintiffJs attempt to recover t(e property is F*stified beca*se defendant /elicidad Teo,emianJs own action for reconveyance (as already been barred by prescription, H))I w(ic( is t(e same as stating t(at t(e very tardiness of t(e plaintiffs in p*rs*ing t(e present action for reconveyance of t(e s*bFect property (as rendered t(e defendantsJ defense n*gatory, and (as made t(e fortress of t(e plaintiffJs case impregnable. T(is concl*sion is incorrect. <s can be discerned from t(e establis(ed facts, t(e Certificates of

Title of t(e vendees >rais are, to say t(e least, irreg*lar, and were iss*ed in a calc*lated move to deprive /elicidad Teo,emian of (er dominical rig(ts over t(e property reserved to (er by descent. Plaintiff co*ld not (ave registered t(e part reserved to /elicidad Teo,emian, as t(is was not among t(ose ceded in t(e 4eed of Sale between 4anielL<lbertana Teo,emian and <ndres >rais. .t m*st be remembered t(at registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence of s*c( title over a partic*lar property. 01mbrado 's. Co*rt of <ppeals2H)&I T(e defense of indefeasibility of t(e Torrens Title does not eAtend to a transferee w(o ta,es t(e certificate of title wit( notice of a flaw in (is title. 0<non*evo 's. Co*rt of <ppeals2H)#I T(e principle of indefeasibility of title is *navailing w(ere t(ere was fra*d t(at attended t(e iss*ance of t(e free patents and titles. 0Meneses vs. Co*rt of <ppeals2H)4I 3e t(at as it may, t(at t(e rig(t of t(e defendants for reconveyance of t(e s*bFect property arising from an implied tr*st *nder <rticle )4'" of t(e Civil Code is material to t(e instant case, s*c( remedy (as not yet lapsed, as erroneo*sly s*bmitted by t(e plaintiffs, and, is t(*s, a bar to t(e plaintiffJs action. .n t(e case of 9eirs of 7ose >lviga 's. Co*rt of <ppeals,H)'I we observed t(at an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constr*ctive tr*st prescribes in ten years, t(e point of reference being t(e date of registration of t(e deed or t(e date of t(e iss*ance of t(e certificate of title over t(e property, b*t t(is r*le applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcin% the trust is not in possession of the property , since if a person claiming to be t(e owner t(ereof is in act*al possession of t(e property, as t(e defendant is in t(e instant case, t(e rig(t to see, reconveyance, w(ic( in effect see,s to =*iet title to t(e property, does not prescribe. T(e reason for t(is is t(at one w(o is in act*al possession of a piece of land claiming to be t(e owner t(ereof may wait *ntil (is possession is dist*rbed or (is title is attac,ed before ta,ing steps to vindicate (is rig(t, t(e reason for t(e r*le being, t(at (is *ndist*rbed possession gives (im a contin*ing rig(t to see, t(e aid of a co*rt of e=*ity to ascertain and determine t(e nat*re of t(e adverse claim of a t(ird party and its effect on (is own title, w(ic( rig(t can be claimed only by one w(o is in possession. <s it is, before t(e period of prescription may start, it m*st be s(own t(at 0a2 t(e tr*stee (as performed *ne=*ivocal acts of rep*diation amo*nting to an o*ster of t(e cestui que trustE 0b2 s*c( positive acts of rep*diation (ave been made ,nown to t(e cestui que trustE and, 0c2 t(e evidence t(ereon is clear and positive.H)"I .n t(e case at bar, t(e defendant /elicidad Teo,emian, and t(ereafter, t(e Cabreras, were in act*al possession of t(e property since it was left to /elicidad Teo,emian by (er fat(er in ) 4), w(ic( possession (ad not been interr*pted, despite t(e sale of t(e two-t(ird portion t(ereof to t(e plaintiff in ) '$, and t(e latterJs proc*rement of a Certificate of Title over t(e s*bFect property in ) '!. Cntil t(e instit*tion of t(e present action in ) %%, plaintiffs, li,ewise, (ave not displayed any *ne=*ivocal act of rep*diation, w(ic( co*ld be considered as an assertion of adverse interest from t(e defendants, w(ic( satisfies t(e above-=*oted re=*isites. T(*s, it cannot be arg*ed t(at t(e rig(t of reconveyance on t(e part of t(e defendants, and its *se as defense in t(e present s*it, (as been lost by prescription. >n t(e ot(er (and, t(e action for reconveyance 0=*ieting of title2 of t(e plaintiff was instit*ted only in ) %%, t(at is, t(irty years from t(e time t(e plaintiffJs (*sband was able to ac=*ire Certificate of Title covering t(e properties in(erited by t(e Teo,emians, and apparently incl*ding t(at portion belonging to /elicidad Teo,emian. .n t(e meantime, defendant /elicidad vda. 4e Cabrera and (er late (*sband (ave been actively in possession of t(e same, tilling it, and constr*cting an irrigation system t(ereon. T(is m*st s*rely constit*te s*c( tardiness on t(e part of t(e plaintiff constit*ting t(e basis for lac(es. 6ac(es (as been defined as t(e fail*re or neglect, for an *nreasonable and *neAplained lengt(

of time, to do t(at w(ic( by eAercising d*e diligence co*ld or s(o*ld (ave been done earlierE it is negligence or omission to assert a rig(t wit(in a reasonable time, warranting a pres*mption t(at t(e party entitled to assert it eit(er (as abandoned it or declined to assert it. H)!I T(e defense of lac(es is an e=*itable one and does not concern itself wit( t(e c(aracter of t(e defendantJs title, b*t only wit( w(et(er or not by reason of plaintiffJs long inaction or ineAc*sable neglect, (e s(o*ld be barred from asserting (is claim at all, beca*se to allow (im to do so wo*ld be ine=*itable and *nF*st to defendant. 6ac(es is not concerned merely wit( lapse of time, *nli,e prescription. D(ile t(e latter deals wit( t(e fact of delay, lac(es deals wit( t(e effect of *nreasonable delay. H)%I T(is Co*rt emp(asi5ed in MeFia de 6*cas 's. ;ampona,H) I t(e reason *pon w(ic( t(e r*le is based is not alone t(e lapse of time d*ring w(ic( t(e neglect to enforce t(e rig(t (as eAisted, b*t t(e c(anges of condition w(ic( may (ave arisen d*ring t(e period in w(ic( t(ere (as been neglect. .n ot(er words, w(ere a co*rt finds t(at t(e position of t(e parties (as to c(ange, t(at e=*itable relief cannot be afforded wit(o*t doing inF*stice, or t(at t(e intervening rig(ts of t(ird persons may be destroyed or serio*sly impaired, it will not eAert its e=*itable powers in order to save one from t(e conse=*ences of (is own neglect. .n o*r F*risdiction, it is an ens(rined r*le t(at even a registered owner of property may be barred from recovering possession of property by virt*e of lac(es. Cnder t(e 6and 8egistration <ct 0now t(e Property 8egistration 4ecree2, no title to registered land in derogation to t(at of t(e registered owner s(all be ac=*ired by prescription or adverse possession. T(e same is not tr*e wit( regard to 6ac(es.H&$I <s we (ave stated earlier in MeFia de 6*cas 's. ;amponia, w(ile t(e defendant may not be considered as (aving ac=*ired title by virt*e of (is and (is predecessorJs long contin*ed possession 0#! years2 t(e original ownerJs rig(t to recover bac, t(e possession of t(e property and t(e title t(ereto from t(e defendant (as, by t(e latterJs long period of possession and by patenteeJs inaction and neglect, been converted into a stale demand. T(e arg*ment t(at lac(es does not apply beca*se w(at was sold to t(e Cabreras was a definite portion of t(e comm*nity property, and, t(erefore, void, is li,ewise *ntenable. Cnder <rticle 4 # of t(e Civil CodeB N1ac( co-owner s(all (ave t(e f*ll owners(ip of (is part and of t(e fr*its and benefits pertaining t(ereto, and even (e may t(erefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even s*bstit*te anot(er person in its enFoyment, eAcept w(en personal rig(ts are involved. 3*t t(e effect of t(e alienation or t(e mortgage, wit( respect to t(e co-owners, s(all be limited to t(e portion w(ic( may be allotted to (im in t(e division *pon t(e termination of t(e co-owners(ip.O .n ;o >ng 's. Co*rt of <ppeals,H&)I t(is Co*rt r*led t(at t(e (eirs, as co-owners, s(all eac( (ave t(e f*ll owners(ip of (is part and t(e fr*its and benefits pertaining to it. <n (eir may, t(erefore, alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even s*bstit*te anot(er person in its enFoyment, eAcept w(en t(e personal rig(ts are involved. 3*t t(e effect of t(e alienation or mortgage, wit( respect to t(e coowners, s(all be limited to t(e portion w(ic( may be allotted to (im in t(e division *pon t(e termination of t(e co-owners(ip. Cndisp*ted is t(e fact t(at since t(e sale of t(e two-t(ird portion of t(e s*bFect property to t(e plaintiff, t(e latter (ad allowed /elicidad Teo,emian to occ*py t(at one-t(ird portion allotted to (er. T(ere (as, t(erefore, been a partial partition, w(ere t(e transferees of an *ndivided portion of t(e land allowed a co-owner of t(e property to occ*py a definite portion t(ereof and (as not dist*rbed t(e same, for a period too long to be ignored--t(e possessor is in a better condition or rig(t 0(otior est conditio possidentis2. Clearly, t(e plaintiff in t(is instance is barred from asserting (er alleged rig(t over t(e portion

s*bFect matter in t(e instant case on t(e gro*nd t(at t(eir rig(t (as been lost by lac(es. .n 3ailonCasilao 's. Co*rt of <ppeals, we r*led t(atB N<s early as ) &#, t(is Co*rt (as r*led t(at even if a co-owner sells t(e w(ole property as (is, t(e sale will affect only (is own s(are b*t not t(ose of t(e ot(er co-owners w(o did not consent to t(e sale 0P*n5alan 's. 3oon 6iat, 44 P(il #&$ H) &#I2. T(is is beca*se *nder t(e aforementioned codal provision, t(e sale or ot(er dispostion affects only (is *ndivided s(are and t(e transferee gets only w(at wo*ld correspond to (is grantor in t(e partition of t(e t(ings owned in common 08amire5 's. 3a*tista, )4 P(il '&% H) $ I2. AAA /or <rticle 4 4 of t(e Civil Code eAplicitly declaresB VNo prescription s(all lie in favor of a co-owner or co-(eir so long as (e eApressly or impliedly recogni5es t(e co-owners(ip.OH&&I IN 1IE4 4*EREOF, t(e petition is (ereby ;8<NT14. T(e decision of t(e Co*rt of <ppeals dated 7an*ary !, ) # is (ereby S1T <S.41. T(e decision of t(e trial co*rt dated <pril &!, ) % is (ereby 81.NST<T14 in toto. SO OR$ERE$.