G.R. No. 272053 - Spouses Calimlim vs. Goao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 272053)

Factual Background

Spouses Gono owned and operated Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas. Spouses Calimlim operated a cluster of informal structures described as shanties or rest houses along the shore fronting Matabungkay Beach and conducted businesses there including rental rooms, sari-sari stores, carinderias, billiard tables, videoke machines, and open-fire kitchens. The parties alleged competing business effects: guests of Villa Alexandra complained about offensive odor, seepage of sewage into dining areas, excessive noise, and fire hazards from open-fire cooking. The structures occupied land identified as foreshore or maritime reserve under Proclamation No. 1801 (November 10, 1978). The DENR denied spouses Calimlim’s application for a foreshore lease and issued Notices to Vacate, which the occupants ignored. Spouses Gono alleged reduced income approximating PHP 50,000.00 and sought structural removal, injunctive relief, easements of light and view, abatement of nuisance, and damages.

Trial Court Proceedings and Evidentiary Facts

The complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction was filed January 3, 2012, and a request for provisional relief was initially denied for lack of an affidavit of merit. The parties underwent court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution without settlement. The parties stipulated, among other matters, that spouses Calimlim had no certificates of title over the lot, operated rental and retail activities, their foreshore lease application was denied by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR, and that spouses Gono served demands to demolish and cease operations. Documentary records in the custody of CENRO and testimony established the existence of DENR Notices to Vacate and related memoranda; however, spouses Calimlim largely failed to present evidence at trial and were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence on scheduled dates.

Trial Court Judgment

By Judgment dated November 16, 2020, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The trial court found that spouses Gono failed to prove that the structures caused damage to their property or that there was intentional, unreasonable, or negligent interference sufficient to constitute a nuisance. The court regarded the alleged loss of income as attributable to ordinary market competition among similar establishments and found no obstruction of light and view in the submitted photographs. Incidents of water seepage and the 2009 electrical fire were not found to pose substantial harm. The trial court likewise dismissed spouses Calimlim’s counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof of bad faith by spouses Gono.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s dismissal in its Decision dated September 13, 2023. The appellate court held that the documentary exhibits of spouses Gono were properly identified and authenticated in accordance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule and preliminary conference proceedings. The Court of Appeals characterized the nuisance as a public nuisance, observing that spouses Calimlim admitted occupancy of public foreshore land and that DENR had denied the foreshore lease application and issued Notices to Vacate. The appellate court found that the structures and the hazardous manner of operation—sewage seepage, offensive odors, open-fire kitchens, and lack of permits—constituted an immediate interference with public safety and the use of property, and that spouses Gono had exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. The Court of Appeals ordered demolition and vacation of the illegal structures and awarded PHP 10,000.00 each as temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, with legal interest at six per cent (6%) per annum.

The Present Petition and Parties’ Contentions

Before the Supreme Court, spouses Calimlim petitioned for review under Rule 45, seeking reinstatement of the trial court Judgment. They primarily argued that spouses Gono violated A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC for failing to authenticate documentary exhibits by judicial affidavit, rendering the September 11, 2015 Order admitting the exhibits void. They also adopted the trial court’s findings that the nuisance claim was private, that occupation for over fifty years negated bad faith, and that the existence of competing businesses explained any loss of income. Spouses Gono defended the Court of Appeals’ rulings, maintained proper identification and authentication of exhibits, reiterated the denial of a foreshore lease and issuance of Notices to Vacate, and stressed the unsafe and unsanitary conditions caused by the respondents’ operations.

Issues Presented

The principal issues were whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting and relying on the documentary evidence in light of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, whether the trial court’s factual findings should have been sustained, and whether the structures and operations of spouses Calimlim constituted a public nuisance and, at least, a nuisance per se warranting demolition and monetary awards.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis: Admissibility and Waiver

The Court first observed that a petition under Rule 45 ordinarily raises questions of law, but an exception allows appellate review of conflicting findings of fact. The Court found no reversible error in the admission of spouses Gono’s exhibits. Rafaelita identified the exhibits in her judicial affidavit and affirmed the affidavit in open court, fulfilling the Judicial Affidavit Rule’s purpose to take the place of direct testimony. Moreover, spouses Calimlim had an opportunity to and did compare photocopies with originals during preliminary conference proceedings and did not timely object to admission at trial; the Court applied the doctrine that untimely objections are waived. The Court further noted that admissibility does not equate to probative weight, which is assessed by the factfinder.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis: Public Nuisance, Foreshore Law, and Nuisance Per Se

Turning to the substantive law of nuisance, the Court explicated Art. 694 of the Civil Code and the distinction between public nuisance and private nuisance, citing precedent including Sitchon v. Aquino and Municipality of Binan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corp. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the nuisance alleged was public because the structures occupied foreshore land and interfered with rights common to the public. The Court observed that foreshore land is subject to special rules and disposal only by lease under Commonwealth Act No. 141, sec. 61, and that the occupants must obtain a foreshore lease agreement under DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24. Because spouses Calimlim’s foreshore lease application was denied and Notices to Vacate were issued, their continued occupation was unauthorized. The Court found that the unpermitted structures, lack of building and business permits, sewage seepage, offensive odor, and open-fire cooking presented an immediate interference with public safety and use of property and produced substantial inconvenience and danger. The Court therefore concluded that the nuisance was properly classified as a public nuisance and, given the immediat

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 272053)

Parties and Posture

spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim, represented by Bienvenido I. Calimlim and Roberto B. Cabral, Petitioners were the owners/operators of informal structures and business facilities along Matabungkay Beach and appealed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals' decision ordering demolition and damages.
spouses Efren G. Gono and Rafaelita R. Gono, Respondents were the owners/operators of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant and plaintiffs below who sued for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 13, 2023 and Resolution dated February 1, 2024 in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735 by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution in full.

Key Facts

spouses Gono alleged that spouses Calimlim erected shanties and rest houses on foreshore land in front of Villa Alexandra and operated video machines, videoke sets, billiard tables, sari-sari stores, and carinderias which disturbed guests and reduced their income.
spouses Calimlim admitted long occupation of the premises and that their application for a foreshore lease was denied by the DENR, but claimed prescriptive occupation of over fifty years and denied bad faith.
The record showed DENR-issued Notices to Vacate and a PENRO memorandum acknowledging the occupants' lack of authorization to occupy foreshore land.
Testimony and documentary exhibits alleged sewer seepage, offensive odor, open-fire kitchens creating fire risk, and an explosion/fire incident that endangered adjacent structures.

Procedural History

Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Nasugbu, Batangas denied an initial prayer for temporary restraining order for lack of an affidavit of merit and later dismissed the complaint on the merits by Judgment dated November 16, 2020.
The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered demolition and vacatur of the structures and awarded PHP 10,000.00 each for temperate, moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees in its Decision dated September 13, 2023.
The Court of Appeals denied a motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated February 1, 2024.
The Supreme Court resolved a Rule 45 petition by affirming the Court of Appeals in its entirety.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting and relying on the documentary exhibits identified through judicial affidavit testimony in light of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC.
Whether the nuisance alleged constituted a public nuisance or a private nuisance under the Civil Code.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure of proof and whether spouses Calimlim waived their right to present evidence.

Parties' Contentions

spouses Calimlim contended that the exhibits were improperly admitted in violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and that the Court of Appeals erroneously classified the subject as a public nuisance.
spouses Gono contended that the exhibits were properly authenticated and that the structures were illegally erected on foreshore land; they argued that administrative remedies were exhausted and that the nuisance caused special injuries warranting relief and damages.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court fou