Andamo vs.
Court of Appeals 191 SCRA 195 (November 6, 1990) negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.
Facts: Petitioner-spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are
the owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang,
Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent, Missionaries
of Our Lady of La Salette, Inc., a religious corporation. Within the
land of respondent corporation, waterpaths and contrivances
(including an artificial lake) were constructed, which allegedly
inundated and eroded petitioners' land; caused a young man to
drown; damaged petitioners' crops and plants; washed away costly
fences; endangered the lives of petitioners and their laborers during
rainy and stormy seasons; and exposed plants and other
improvements to destruction.
Issue: Whether or not a corporation, which has built waterpaths,
water conductors and contrivances within its land, thereby causing
inundation and damage to an adjacent land, can be held civilly
liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code
on quasi-delicts.
Held: A careful examination of the complaint shows that the action
is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-
delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a)
damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond;
and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff. Clearly, the waterpaths and contrivances built by
respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of
petitioners. There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection
between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage
sustained by petitioners. Such action, if proven, constitutes fault or
recovery of damages. It must be stressed that the use of one's
property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code
provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such
a manner as to injure the rights of a third person." SIC UTERE TUO
UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS. Moreover, adjoining landowners have
mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his
own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the
rights and interests of others. Although we recognize the right of an
owner to build structures on his land, such structures must be so
constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they
cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand
the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures cause
injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the
latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.
Dulay v. CA GR No 108017 (1995)
Facts: On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Benigno
Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang sa
Alabang," Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno
Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the said carnival, shot and
killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay. The widow of Atty. Dulay filed an action
for damages against the employer and the security guard and
prayed to be awarded actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees. She alleges that the Secuity agency
has concurrent negligence as Torzuela, their employee: “
Defendant TORZUELA'S wanton and reckless discharge of the
firearm issued to him by defendant SAFEGUARD and/or
SUPERGUARD was the immediate and proximate cause of the
injury, while the negligence of defendant SAFEGUARD and/or
SUPERGUARD consists in its having failed to exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision and control
of its employee to avoid the injury.” SUPERGUARD filed a Motion
to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid
cause of action. SUPERGUARD claimed that Torzuela's act of
shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties, and that since
the alleged act of shooting was committed with deliberate intent
(dolo), the civil liability therefore is governed by Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, which states:
"ARTICLE 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of a felony. — Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." 1. 2.
However, petitioner contends further that Article 2180 of the Civil
Code shall govern and that it is independent from the subsidiary
civil liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. That the act of Torzuela is actionable under Article 33 of the
New Civil Code:
"ARTICLE 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a
civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence."
Issue:
Whether or not the civil action is founded on quasi-delict and should
the employer be held jointly liable for damages.
Whether or not physical injuries include consummated homicide for
Article 33 to apply in the case
Held: Yes to both issues. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only
acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary
and intentional. Private respondents further aver that Article 33 of
the New Civil Code applies only to injuries intentionally committed
pursuant to the ruling in Marcia v. CA. However, the term "physical
injuries" in Article 33 has already been construed to include bodily
injuries causing death (Capuno v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the
Philippines). It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the
Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but also
consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide.
Custodio vs. Court of Appeals 253 SCRA 483 (February 9, 1996)
Facts: Mabasa bought a parcel of land with an apartment in Interior
P. Burgos St., Taguig, Metro Manila. There were tenants occupying
the apartment at the time of purchase. Taking P. Burgos St. as the
point of reference, on the left side going to Mabasa’s apartment, the
row of houses are as follows: That of Custodio, then of Santos, then
that of Mabasa. On the right side is that of Morato and a septic tank.
The first passageway from the apartment to P. Burgos St. is
through these houses. The second passageway goes through the
septic tank, with a width of less than 1 meter.Sometime later, one of
the apartment’s tenants vacated it. Mabasa checked the premises
and saw that the Santoses built an adobe fence, making the first
passageway narrower. Morato also built an adobe fence in such a
way that the entire passageway was enclosed. Then the remaining
tenants vacated the area. Santos claimed that she built the fence
because of an incident involving her daughter and a passing
bicycle. She also mentioned that some drunk tenants would bang
their doors and windows. The RTC granted a right of way and
damages in favor of Custodio and the Santoses. The CA modified the Bundocs’ answer, they said that the Rapisuras are the ones
it, ordering an award of damages to Mabasa. Custodio questioned who should be liable since parental authority had shifted to the
the right of way and award of damages in the SC. adopting parents from the moment a successful petition was filed.

Issue: Whether or Not the award of damages is proper. Issue: Who should be liable for the minor’s acts?

Held: Firstly, the Custodios are barred from questioning the grant of
the right of way, because they failed to appeal the decision. The
decision has become final. As to the award of damages, the CA
erred in awarding damages in favor of private respondents Mabasa.
The mere fact that Mabasa suffered losses does not give rise to a
right to recover damages. To warrant the recovery of damages,
there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by
Custodio, and damage resulting to Mabasa. Wrong without
damage, or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of
action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for
the injury caused by a breach or wrong. In the case at bar, there
were no previous easements existing in favor of Mabasa. The
construction of the adobe fence is a natural use and enjoyment of
one’s property in a general and ordinary manner. Nobody can
complain of being injured here, because the inconvenience arising
from said use can be considered as a mere consequence of
community life.
Held: Parental authority is not retroactively transferred to the
adopting parents especially with regard to quasi-delicts. The New
Civil Code states that, The father and the mother, are responsible
for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company. The basis of the vicarious liability rests upon the
negligence in the obligation to supervise and control the minor, and
since the ones exercising parental authority and had physical
custody pending the adoption proceedings are still the natural
parents over the child, they should be the ones liable for any
damage caused. Vicarious liability of teachers and heads of
institutions Vicarious liability of teachers and heads of institutions.

Tamargo vs CA G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992.

Facts: A case based on quasi-delict was filed against the natural

parents of Adelberto Bundoc, a minor, who shot Jennifer Tamargo
with an air rifle which caused her death. Prior to the incident,
Adelberto has been the subject of adoption proceedings filed by
Rapisura spouses and after the incident, the same was granted. In