Case Summary (G.R. No. 272053)
Key Dates
Complaint filed: January 3, 2012. Trial court judgment dismissing complaint: November 16, 2020. Court of Appeals decision reversing and ordering demolition, damages and attorney’s fees: September 13, 2023. Court of Appeals denial of motion for reconsideration: February 1, 2024. Supreme Court decision affirming Court of Appeals: January 14, 2025.
Applicable Law and Procedural Framework
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision year 2025 dictates application of 1987 Constitution). Procedural law: Rule 45 petitions generally limited to questions of law; exception where lower courts’ factual findings conflict. Evidence rules implicated: A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule). Substantive law on nuisance: Articles 694–703 and related Civil Code provisions defining nuisance, public vs. private nuisance, and remedies. Foreshore/land law: Commonwealth Act No. 141 (sec. 61) and DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24 governing foreshore lands and requirement of foreshore lease agreements.
Factual Background
Spouses GoAo operate Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay. Spouses Calimlim erect and operate informal structures/shanties/rest houses, provide videoke, billiards, sari-sari stores and carinderias along the shore fronting Matabungkay Beach. Spouses GoAo alleged guests complained, some left, and Villa Alexandra’s income declined. Alleged nuisances included excessive noise, offensive odors, seepage of toilet effluent into Villa Alexandra’s dining area, open-fire kitchens posing fire risk (one explosion/fire incident in 2009), lack of business/building/sanitary permits, failure to issue official receipts or pay taxes, and occupation of land declared a tourist zone and maritime reserve under Proclamation No. 1801 (1978). DENR records showed spouses Calimlim’s application for a foreshore lease was denied and Notices to Vacate were issued.
Procedural History and Trial Conduct
Parties attempted barangay-level and administrative remedies (demands, complaints to local government, DENR, Department of Tourism, Presidential Action Center) before filing suit. Trial court denied initial temporary injunction/TRO for lack of affidavit of merit; mediation and judicial dispute resolution efforts were unsuccessful. Parties stipulated to several facts (no title for Calimlim structures; Calimlim engaged in rental and retail businesses; DENR denied foreshore lease; GoAo served demands). During trial, only spouses GoAo presented evidence; spouses Calimlim failed to present evidence on scheduled dates and the trial court considered them to have waived their right to present evidence.
Trial Court Ruling (November 16, 2020)
The trial court dismissed the complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement and injunction. Key findings: spouses GoAo failed to prove that spouses Calimlim’s structures caused damage or intentional/unreasonable interference (or negligent/reckless interference) with Villa Alexandra’s business; reduction in income was attributable to competition among several businesses along Matabungkay Beach; photos did not show obstruction of light or view; alleged water seepage and the fire incident did not constitute substantial harm; and spouses Calimlim’s counterclaim lacked proof of bad faith. The trial court therefore denied both the complaint and the counterclaim.
Court of Appeals Ruling (September 13, 2023)
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. It sustained admission of respondents’ documentary exhibits (Rafaelita identified exhibits in her judicial affidavit; counsel for spouses Calimlim compared originals and photocopies and certified faithful reproduction). The Court of Appeals characterized the nuisance as a public nuisance, reasoning that spouses Calimlim admitted occupying public foreshore land and that their unauthorized occupation and operations directly encroached on public property. It found spouses GoAo had exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit and that the injuries suffered by GoAo and their guests were substantial. The CA ordered demolition and vacatur of illegal structures, and awarded PHP 10,000 each as temperate damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees (joint and several liability), plus legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Primary issues raised by petitioners (spouses Calimlim): (1) alleged violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule—documentary exhibits identified in judicial affidavits were improperly admitted and the September 11, 2015 order admitting exhibits is void; (2) factual insufficiency—spouses GoAo failed to prove nuisance or special/substantial injury; (3) erroneous classification of the nuisance as public rather than private; (4) reliance on evidence or procedural steps not properly taken at trial. Respondents defended the CA’s findings and awards, restating exhaustion of administrative remedies and illegality of Calimlim’s occupation and operations.
Standard of Review and Scope of Certiorari (Rule 45)
The Supreme Court reiterated that Rule 45 ordinarily restricts review to questions of law, but recognizes exceptions when factual findings of lower courts are conflicting. The Court found that this case presented such conflict and therefore considered both legal and certain factual determinations. The Court also applied principles concerning timely objections and waiver in the admission of evidence.
Judicial Affidavit Rule and Waiver Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that there was no violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Rafaelita executed and affirmed her judicial affidavit in open court, identifying and authenticating exhibits. The purpose of the judicial affidavit is to replace direct testimony, and Rafaelita’s in-court affirmation made the documents properly identified. Moreover, spouses Calimlim failed to timely object to admission of the exhibits; failure to raise objections at the proper time constitutes waiver. Even if authentication were defective, admissibility does not compel evidentiary weight; but here the Court accepted the trial court/CA evaluation that the exhibits were properly admitted and identified.
Public vs. Private Nuisance and Foreshore Land Legal Regime
The Court affirmed the CA’s classification of the subject matter as a public nuisance. Legal bases considered: Article 694 (definition of nuisance) and Article 695 (public nuisance affects a community, neighborhood or a considerable number of persons). The land occupied by spouses Calimlim was foreshore land; foreshore lands are disposable only by lease under Commonwealth Act No. 141 and implementing DENR regulations (DENR AO No. 2004-24). Spouses Calimlim admitted their foreshore lease application was denied and DENR issued Notices to Vacate. Unauthorize
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 272053)
The Case (Title, Nature, Court, and Panel)
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim (substituted by Bienvenido Calimlim and Rufina/Joey Cabral in the proceedings) seeking reversal of Court of Appeals dispositions in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735.
- Dispositions assailed: (1) Decision dated September 13, 2023 reversing the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas Judgment dated November 16, 2020 that had dismissed the complaint; and (2) Resolution dated February 1, 2024 denying motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Lazaro-Javier, Second Division; Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.
Parties and Their Roles
- Plaintiffs-Appellants in the trial and appellants before the Court of Appeals: spouses Efren G. GoAo and Rafaelita R. GoAo (collectively, spouses GoAo), owners and operators of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant located in Barangay Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas.
- Defendants-Appellees in the trial and petitioners before the Supreme Court: spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim (referred to in prior proceedings as deceased spouses Calimlim substituted by Bienvenido Calimlim and Joey/Rufina Cabral), operators of informal structures, rest houses, sari-sari stores, carinderias, and leisure machines along Matabungkay Beach.
- Counsel substitution and party substitutions occurred in the trial proceedings; the petitions and pleadings identify specific substitute parties and counsel as reflected in the record.
Factual Antecedents (Core Facts Alleged by Spouses GoAo)
- Spouses GoAo alleged ownership and operation of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas.
- Spouses Calimlim allegedly erected informal structures/rest houses and operated video machines, videoke sets, billiard tables, sari-sari stores and carinderias along the Matabungkay shore.
- Guest complaints at Villa Alexandra were allegedly caused by spouses Calimlim's activities: discomfort, inconvenience, guests swore never to return, and some guests left to stay elsewhere, resulting in alleged loss of income of about PHP 50,000.00.
- Structures of spouses Calimlim obstructed Villa Alexandra's view of the shore.
- The land where spouses Calimlim’s structures stood was declared a tourist zone and maritime reserve under Proclamation No. 1801 dated November 10, 1978.
- Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) denied spouses Calimlim’s application for a foreshore lease; DENR/CENRO/PENRO issued Notices to Vacate and memoranda in the records.
- Spouses Calimlim allegedly did not secure building permits, business permits, sanitary permits, mayor’s permits; did not issue official receipts or pay business taxes.
- Operations allegedly produced excessive noise, offensive odors, toilet water seeping into Villa Alexandra’s dining area and into the ground, and unsanitary disposal of human excrement.
- Spouses Calimlim maintained open-fire kitchens using makeshift stoves; an explosion on June 15, 2009 caused a fire in Rufina Cabral’s main electrical line which was extinguished using a fire extinguisher from Villa Alexandra.
- Spouses GoAo demanded removal of structures and filed barangay-level complaints; parties failed to settle.
Claims, Causes of Action, and Reliefs Sought by Spouses GoAo
- Complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction.
- Specific prayers:
- Order of demolition and removal of shanties/rest houses.
- Cease-and-desist order of operations of shanties/rest houses and related business activities (cafeteria, billiard tables, video machines, videoke sets, etc.).
- Order granting plaintiffs the right to use portions of land possessed by defendants and easements of light and view to the sea.
- Order abating the nuisance and granting easement against nuisance.
- Award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
Defendants’ (Spouses Calimlim) Contentions and Counterclaim
- Spouses Calimlim claimed long possession and occupation (more than 50 years), predating Villa Alexandra; emphasized existence of other similar structures in Matabungkay.
- Argued that not every discomfort, inconvenience, or annoyance constitutes a nuisance; denied invasion or violation of private rights; denied obstruction of view; attributed any loss of income to legitimate competition among establishments.
- Asserted lack of bad faith; maintained that the operations served tourists and were not designed to interfere with Villa Alexandra.
- By counterclaim, sought moral, exemplary damages, and legal fees of PHP 100,000.00 each.
Trial Court Proceedings and Pre-Trial Events
- TRO and preliminary injunction denied on January 12, 2012 due to absence of an affidavit of merit; motion for reconsideration filed February 8, 2012.
- Omnibus motion (Notice of Substitution, Motion to Admit Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Admit Answer) filed by spouses Calimlim on April 27, 2012.
- Court-Annexed Mediation ordered and conducted; mediator’s report dated July 11, 2012 indicated unsuccessful mediation.
- Resolution dated September 3, 2012 granted substitution of parties for deceased spouses Calimlim (substituted by Bienvenido Calimlim and Joey Calimlim) and denied reconsideration of TRO denial.
- Judicial Dispute Resolution referral (Feb 27, 2014) likewise unsuccessful; case returned for trial on the merits.
- Pre-trial conference November 7, 2014 with stipulations executed (see stipulations below).
- Parties stipulated: (1) spouses Calimlim had no certificates of title over lot where structures stood; (2) spouses Calimlim rented rooms to tourists and operated sari-sari stores, carinderias, billiard tables, and videoke machines; (3) spouses Calimlim’s foreshore lease application was denied by DENR; and (4) spouses GoAo served demands to demolish and cease operations.
- During trial, only spouses GoAo presented evidence; spouses Calimlim failed to present evidence on dates set by pre-trial order and were considered to have waived their right to present evidence.
- Spouses Calimlim filed motions for reconsideration and later manifested they would submit their case for decision; parties directed to file memoranda and case deemed submitted.
Trial Court Judgment (November 16, 2020)
- Branch 14, Regional Trial Court, Nasugbu, Batangas dismissed the Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance, Easement, and Injunction.
- Trial court findings and reasoning:
- Spouses GoAo failed to prove that spouses Calimlim’s structures caused damage to their property or intentional/unreasonable interference, or negligent/reckless conduct.
- Loss of income could not be directly attributed to spouses Calimlim given multiple competing businesses along Matabungkay Beach.
- Structures served tourists and were not operated to intentionally interfere with Villa Alexandra.
- Photographs did not show obstruction of light and view to Villa Alexandra.
- Alleged toilet water seepage and the fire incident did not prove substantial harm.
- Dismissed spouses Calimlim’s counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof of bad faith by spouses GoAo.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Decision (September 13, 2023)
- Spouses GoAo appealed trial court dismissal.
- Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court judgment; ordered demolition and vacation of illegal structures and premises around Matabungkay beach in front of Villa Alexandra.
- Court of Appeals’ holdings:
- Admission of spouses GoAo’s documentary exhibits by the trial court was proper: exhibits were marked at preliminary conference; Rafaelita identified exhibits in judicial affidavit; spouses Calimlim’s counsel compared originals with photocopies and certified faithfulness.
- Correctly characterized the nuisance as public, not private, because spouses Calimlim admitted occupying public property (foreshore land) and their occupancy and obstruction affected public use.
- Spouses GoAo exhausted administrative and local remedies (demands, local government complaint, DENR/CENRO/PENRO involvement) prior to filing civil action.
- The interference to Villa Alexandra operations and guests was substantial; structures impaired plaint