MEANING OF TORT AND TORTIOUS ACT
TORT AND CONTRACT
1. Tort - wrongful act or omission resulting in a breach of
private duty and damage from said breach of duty of such a
character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the
inured party against the wrongdoer.
ESSENCE OF TORT
1.Defendant's potential for civil liability - the defendant's
potential civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and
correspondingly the victims potential for compensation or
other relief.
2. Existence of physical harms, not essential
3. variations of torts
KINDS OF WRONG
1. civil - involves a violation of private legal right
criminal - regarded as an offense against the public and is
penalized by law as a crime or felony
2. intentional - defendant is consciously aware that his
conduct is wrongful, or negligent if the defendant does not
intend an invasion of plaintiff's right but is aware that, by his
behavior, he is taking unreasonable risk
3. reckless, wrong, wanton wrong - species of negligence
which imports knowledge and consciousness of the high risk of
harm resulting from his conduct as to be equivalent to an
intentional wrong.
FUNCTIONS OR GOALS OF TORT
1. morality or corrective justice
2. Social Utility or policy
3. Legal process
4. potential conflicts
5. Distribution of loss
6. redress of social grievances
7. summary - a mixed system
TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS
1.Property torts - embrace all injuries and damages to
property, whether realty or personalty
2. Personal Torts - include all injuries to the person, whether
to the body, reputations or feelings. a tort which is not an
injury to property is a personal tort.
CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INJURY IN TORT LAW
- it embrace all actionable injuries to the individual himself. it
may denote an injury affecting the reputation, character,
conduct, manner and habits of a person.
DEFINITION OF INJURY, DAMAGES AND DAMAGE
1. Injury - illegal invasion of a legal right
2. damage - loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury
3. damages - recompense or compensation awarded for the
damage suffered.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
1. contract duties are created by the promises of the parties
while tort duties are imposed as rules of law
2. contracts are largely about economic matters such as buying
and selling many torts involve physical harms
3. contract law is at least formally strict liability law. most tort
law on the other hand, is at least formally fault based.
4. it is a character of torts that the duties from the violation of
which tort result are creatures of the law and not of particular
agreements. a contract is not essential to the existence of tort
5. a breach of contract may be treated as a tort where the law
casts its separate obligation.
DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
1.Restitution; injunction - forces the tortfeasor to disorge
gains he wrongfully obtained by tort, and injunction, which
compels him to cease his tortous conduct.
2.Compensation of harm suffered - the award is usually a
money award called damages and is intended as a kind of
compensation for the harm suffered.
PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE FOR TORT
1. Particular individual injured
2. Persons upon whom tort committed
3. person injured by tort committed upon another
4. Several persons wronged by the same act
5. persons especially injured by contract violation
6. Person directly, not collaterally, injured
PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT
1. Tortfeasor
2. Person incapable of making a contract
3. Person other than tortfeasor
a. mere presence at the commission of a wrongful act by
another will not render him liable as a participant. however,
proof that a person is present at the commission of a wrongful
act
b. Mere knowledge - that a tort is being committed against
another will not be sufficient to establish liability
c. mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort after the act
does not make a person liable
d. ratification must be founded on full knowledge of the facts
constituting wrong which has been committed or with a
purpose on the part of the principal to take the consequences
on himself without inquiry.
e. no duty to control conduct of a third peron as to prevent him
from causing bodily harm to another unless a special
relationship exists between one and the third person.
joint tortfeasor - two or more persons who act together in
committing a wrong or contribute to its commission or assist
or participate therein actively and without common intent, so
that injury results to a third person from the joint wrongful act
of the wrongdoers.
ELEMENTS AND TYPES OF TORTS
ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. legal right in favor of a person (plaintiff)
2. correlative legal obligation on the part of another to respect
or not to violate such right
3. a wrong in the form of an act or omission in violation of said
legal right and duty with consequent injury or damage to
plainitff.
Legal right - well founded claim enforced by sanctions
Legal duty - which the law requires to be done or forborne to
a determinate person or to the public.
Motive - impelling force or underlying or subjective reason for
doing an act, or the mental state or force which induces an act
of violation
Motive is material: lawful act constitutes an actionable tort
when unlawful means are employed purposely to injure
another.
Motive is immaterial: conduct which does not either by itself
or because of the manner of its exercise, constitute an invasion
of the right of another is not tortuous , however bad or
malicious the actor's motives.
Purpose - denotes the object of an act or the external or
objectives result desired
Intent - an external act or an intelligent volition and is thus
distinguishable from the term "motive" their use in statements
of legal principles has not always been mutually exclusive.
MATERIALITY OF INTENT
1.Intentional act is done in ignorance - voluntary act,
presenting the elements of duty, breach, and damage is
tortious although unaccompanied by a deliberate design to
injure or to commit an unlawful act.
2. Resulting damage is different from that contemplated -
fortiori where defendant voluntarily engages in conduct
designed to cause some damage, it is immaterial, on the
question of the existence of a tort that the damage actually
brought is different from that contemplated by him
3. Act complained of is not done unlawfully or without care -
although the ultimate motive is not bad, if the intent is to
accomplish that purpose be deliberately inflicting injury, the
goodness of the motive will not render non- tortiuos acts
which are torts by reason of the badness of the intent.
PARTICULAR KINDS OF TORTIOUS ACTS
1. acts intended to inflict injury
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
General rule - a cause of action arises whenever one person,
by an act not in the exercise of a lawful right, causes loss or
does damage to another with an intent, either actual or
constructive, to produce such harm, without just or lawful
excuse or justifiable cause or occasion.
2. acts not intended to inflict injury - a casue of action may be
predicated upon negligence, or the failure to observe a
standard of case prescribed by law, without a conscious design
to do wrong
3. malicious acts - defined not only as relating to the
intentional commission of a wrongful act, but also as involving
wickedness, depravity and evil intent.
* there is no liability in tort for doing a lawful act even though
it is done for the malicious purpose of injuring another party,
where there are also legitimate reasons for doing the act.
4. willful and wanton act
willful act - one done intentionally, or on purpose, and not
accidentally and willfulness implies intentional wrongdoing
wanton act - wrongful act done on purpose or in malicious
disregard of the rights of others
5. willful or wanton negligence - imports premeditation or
knowledge and consciousness that injury is likely to result from
the act done or from the omission of the act.
6. Acts arising out of a contractual relationship
PARTICULAR TYPES OF TORTS
1. General types
a. culpable and intentional acts resulting in harm
b. acts involving culpable and unlawful conduct casing
unintentional harm
c. non culpable acts or conduct resulting in accidental harm
which because of hazards involved, the law imposes absolute
liability notwithstanding the abuse of fault.
2. Interference with property rights
3. Interference with right to services
4. Interference with contractual rights
5. Interference with personal rights
6. Rudeness, threats, abusive language
7. obstruction of, and compelling resort to, legal remedies
8. Malicious prosecution of a criminal action
9. unauthorized suit in another's name
10. other particular torts;
a. Acts of public officers
b. injurious falsehood
c. interference with right or destruction of will
d. trade secrets, inventions or patents
Prima Facie Tort Doctrine
- the infliction of intentional harms resulting in damage
without excuse or justification by an act or a series of acts
which would otherwise be lawful.

Doctrine of absolute or strict liability
- the actor, realizing the hazard of his undertaking nevertheless
assumes the risk connected therewith and, notwithstanding
he is free from all wrong, and has used utmost care, he
nevertheless is liable for any invasion of the person or property
rights of another.
QUASI - DELICTS
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
*Fault - when a person acts in a manner contrary to what
should have done.
only juridical fault, but not moral fault gives rise to liability for
damages. lack of charity or altruism, constituting moral fault,
does not constitute quasi- delict.
* The fault referred to Art. 2176 is a fault substantive and
independent which in itself is a source of obligations and is also
known as culpa aquilana as distinguished from culpa
contractual. If the fault is committed intentionally to cause
damage to another, it becomes a dolo punished as a crime by
the RPC.
Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person, that the degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand whereby such another person suffers injury.
Distinction between fault and negligence
A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault, but there
may be fault without negligence as here the damage or injury
resulting from the wrongful act or omission as cause wilfully
and not by reason of lack of care.
No Duty to Act Rule
Unless the defendant has assumed a duty to act, or stands in a
special relationship to the plaintiff, defendants are not liable in
tort for a pure failure to act for the plaintiffs benefit.
REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT
1. act or omission by the defendant
2. fault or negligence of the defendant
3. damage or injury caused to the plaintiff
4. there must be a direct relationship or connection of cause
and effect between the act or omission and the damage
5. no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
BURDEN OF PROOF
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
the burden of proof is generally on the person claiming
damages to establish by satisfactory evidence that the legal
cause of his damage or injury was the fault or negligence of the
defendant or of one for whose acts he must respond and the
damages suffered by him
As a rule, negligence is not presumed. Mere suspicion, surmise
or speculation cannot be the basis of an award for damages.
where, however, negligence is presumed by law, , the burden
of proving its non existence is shifted to the party to whom the
presumption applies.
CULPA AQUILANA VS. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
1.culpa aquilana- is the wrongful act or omission which of itself
is the source of the obligation separate from, and independent
of, contract
culpa contractual - act or omission considered as an incedent
in the performance of an obligation already existing and which
constitutes a breach thereof
a. where liability arises from culpa aquilana, not a breach of
positive obligation, an employer or master may excuse himself
under the last paragraph of Article 2180 by proving that he had
exercised " all diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage"
b. in culpa aquilana, the plainitff has the burden of proving that
the defendant was at fault or negligent.
in culpa contractual, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead
or prove that the violation of the contract was due to fault or
negligence.
c. culpa aquilana- there is no preseumption that the defendant
was at fault or negligent
Culpa contractual - the mere proof of the existence of the
contract and its breach raises such presumtion that the burden
is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fualt or
negligent.
d. culpa aquilana - primarily governed by Article 2176
Culpa Contractual - governed by 1170 to 1174
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.(n)
CRIME VS. QUASI- DELICT
1. crime -there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal
negligence
quasi delict - there is only negligence
2. Crime - there are 2 liabilities: criminal and civil
QD - there is only civil liability
3. Crime - affects public interest
QD - concerns private interest or concern
4. crime - purpose is punishment or correction
QD - indemnification of the offended party
5. Criminal liability cannot be compromised
Liability for QD can be compromised as any other civil liability
6. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt,
QD - the fault or negligence of the defendant need only be
proved by preponderance of evidence
7. Crime - the liability of the person responsible for the author
of the negligent act or omission is subsidiary
QD - it is direct and primary
Recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission is
prohibited
* quasi - delict and an act or omission punishable by law are
two different sources of obligations.
The offended party has the option between an action for
enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under Art.
100 of RPC and an action for recovery of damages based on
culpa aquilana under Art. 2177 of the NCC.
These two cases of action may be availed of subject to the
caveat that the offended party cannot recover twice for the
same act or omission or under both causes.
This proscription in our law stems from the fundamental rule
against unjust enrichment. Since these two civil liabilities are
distinct and independent of each other, the failure to reciver
in one will not necessarily preclude recovery in the other.
Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)
Statutory definition of Fault or negligence
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
Negligence - conduct that creates undue risk or harm to
another. it is the failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person , that justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury
Test for determining whether a person is negligent
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
1.Reasonable care and caution expected of an ordinary
prudent person
2. No hard and fast rule from measuring degree of care
3.Negligence, a legal question
Factors to be considered
1. nature of the obligation
2. circumstances of the person or thing
3. Circumstances of time
4. Circumstances of the place
Fortuitous Event
Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
(1105a)
Fortuitous Event - any event which cannot be foreseen, or
which though foreseen, is inevitable. it is an event which is
either impossible to foresee or impossible to avoid.
Fortuitous Event vs. Force Majeure
Fortuitous Event - event independent of the will of the obligor
but not of other men (Acts of Men)
Force Majeure - those events which are totally independent of
the will of every human being (Acts of God)
Requisites of Fortuitous Event
1. Event must be independent of the human will or at least the
obligor's will
2. the event could not be foreseen or if foreseen, must have
been impossible to avoid
3. Event must be of such a character as to render it impossible
for the obligor to comply with his obligation in a normal
manner
4. Obligor must be free from any participation in, or the
aggravation of the injury to the obligee
Doctrine of assumption of risk
Meaning - assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete
defense by the defendant in a quasi-delictual action. it
assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm
from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover
from such harm.
Requisites:
1. plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger
2. he understood and appreciated the risk form the danger
3. he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)
Effect of negligence on the part of the injured party
Negligence merely contributed to the injury - to be entitled
to the damages, the law does not require that the negligence
of the defendant should be the sole cause of the damage.
There is a contributory negligence on the part of the injured
party where his conduct has contributed, as a legal cause to
the harm he has suffered, which fall below the standard to
which he is required to conform for his own protection.
Legal cause of damage, harm or injury
A person claiming damages for the fault or negligence of
another has the burden of establishing at least 3 conditions:
1. fault or negligence of the defendant
2. Damage, harm or injury to the plaintiff
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damage.
Proximate cause
- that cause which in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Tests of Proximate cause
1. But for test - defendant's conduct is the cause of the injury
which would not have been sustained if the defendant had not
been negligent.
2. cause-in-fact test - a cause in fact relation must exist
between defendants conduct and plaintiff's injury before
liability may arise.
3. substantial factor test - if the actors conduct is a substantial
factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the
actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of
the harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not prevent
him from being liable
4. Foreseability test - if the defendant could not reasonably
foresee any injury as a result of his act, or if his act is
reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no
negligence and no liability.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
5. Natural and probable consequence test - it must appear
that the injury was not only the natural but also the probable
consequence of the conduct as distinguished from
consequences that are merely possible. since shat is probable
is, in a real sense, foreseeable, foresee ability appears to be an
implicit element of this test of proximate cause.
6. Direct consequence test - the defendant is liable for all the
damage that flows as the ordinary and natural or direct
consequence of his conduct to be determined from the
circumstances of the case rather than upon whether he might
or must have reasonably expected the resulting inury.
Doctrine of contributory negligence - negligence on the part
of the injured party which merely contributes to, but is not the
proximate cause of, his inury, and resulting in the mitigation of
the defendant's liability and plaintiff's indemnity.
Doctrine of comparative negligence - a comparison is made in
terms of the degree of the negligence of the plaintiff and that
of the defendant and the amount of damages recoverable by
plaintiff is reduced to the extent of his negligence.
Doctrine of Last clear chance - the negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's
negligence.
Elements - The doctrine may be invoked by the injured
person, if the following facts are present.
1. the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own
negligence , became unable to escape from such position by
the use of ordinary care , either because it became physically
impossible for him to do so or because he as totally unaware
of the danger.
2. the defendant knew that the plaintiff as in a position of
danger and further knew , or in the exercise of ordinary care
should have known , that the plaintiff was unable to escape
there from
3. that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident by the exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise
such last clear chance, and the accident occurred as a
proximate result of such failure.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
- the thing or transaction speaks for itself. it is a maxim for the
rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or
negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and
present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation.
the doctrine is applied only if unsure and if no direct evidence
of who is at fault. when you cannot tell who is at fault but you
can tell what contributed to the injury.
Requisites of the doctrine:
1. the accident is of a kind or character which ordinarily does
not occur in the absence of someone's negligence
2. it is caused by an instrumentality or an agency within the
exclusive management or control of the defendant or
defendants
3. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make
the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
Emergency Rule
- a person who, without fault or negligence on his part , is
suddenly placed in an emergency or unexpected danger and
compelled to act instantly and instinctively with no time for
reflection and exercise of the required precaution, is not guilty
of negligence and therefore, exempt from liability, if he did not
make the wisest choice of the available courses of conduct to
avoid injury which reasonably a prudent person would have
made under normal circumstances.
- the rule is not available where the situation or danger was
caused by his own negligence.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live
in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
Principle of vicarious liability
- a person is made liable not only for torts committed by
himself but also for torts committed by others with whom he
has certain relationship and for whom he is responsible ,
subject to certain conditions.
Liability of parents
both parents shall be liable as amended by the family code
Scope of liability
1. minor children who live in their company
2. minor child is already married and minor is not living with
parents if the separation of unjustifiable because of the failure
of the parents to properly exercise their parental authority and
responsibility.
Respondent superior - negligence
Vicarous libility - liability
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he
has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Does not concern on either joint or solidary liability.
-persons enumerated under 2180 are given the right to seek
reimbursement from the author for "what he has paid of or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim " of the plaintiff.
Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has
no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it
may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come
from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered damage. (1905)
Main consideration for liability: if there is control.
He who possesses the animal for utility, pleasure or service
must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of
article 2180 are applicable. (n)
Applicability of 2184
the article applies only if the owner was at the vehicle at the
time of the mishap otherwise, the provisions of article 2180
would be applicable, where the owner even if not in the
vehicle will be liable unless he exercised due diligence to
prevent the damage.
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation. (n)
Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the
proper government office a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to
third persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall
be fixed by the competent public official. (n)
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death
or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used,
although no contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers. (n)
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that negligence
is not presumed.
Requisites for liability
1. defendant is a manufacturer or processor
2. products manufactured or processed are foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles, and similar goods
3. defendant used noxious or harmful substances in the
manufacture of processing
4. death or injury was caused by the product consumed or used
containing such noxious or harmful substances.
5. victim is the consumer, user or purchaser
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n)
Prima facie presumption that the defendant was negligent if:
1. a person dies or in injured
2. death or injury results from the defendant's possession of
dangerous weapon or substances.
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision. (n)
Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
(1907)
Liability of proprietor - if he failed to make necessary repairs
Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken
care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,
if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to
the place. (1908)
Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
articles should be the result of any defect in the construction
mentioned in article 1723, the third person suffering damages
may proceed only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article, within the period
therein fixed. (1909)
2190 talks about the defect in the construction - engineer or
architect shall be liable for any damage or injury y the defect.
Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a
part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
Head of the family - may not be the owner of the building and
it may include lessee who lives in the building or a part
thereof.
Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who
are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
Proscription of action upon quasi-delict
Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within
four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
However, when the action arises from or out of any act,
activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise
of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the
arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be
brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec.
24, 1980.)

Licuanan, Apple Jade S.

Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)