Title
Spouses Ermino vs. Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 180808
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2018
Spouses Ermino sued E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI for flood damage. Court ruled GVHAI not liable; E.B. Villarosa negligent for inadequate flood control.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180808)

Petitioner

Spouses Abraham and Melchora Ermino.

Respondent

Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc., represented by Leticia C. Inukai.

Key Dates

August 12 & September 10, 1995 – Heavy rains causing flood damage;
December 30, 2003 – RTC decision;
October 9, 2007 – CA decision;
August 15, 2018 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Civil Code (Articles 20, 21, 430, 613, 627, 637); Water Code (Article 50); jurisprudence on negligence and easements.

Facts

Continuous heavy rainfall caused runoff and debris from Hilltop City Subdivision to destroy Spouses Ermino’s fence, furniture, appliances, and automobile. Spouses Ermino sued E.B. Villarosa for negligent development (failure to construct retaining walls and follow environmental rules) and sued GVHAI for replacing a steel-grille gate with a concrete fence that allegedly diverted water into their property.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC found both E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI jointly and severally liable for damages, awarding Spouses Ermino actual damages for house (P561,535.53), car (P7,664.53), and litigation expenses, and ordering GVHAI to modify its fence. Moral and exemplary damages were denied.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On GVHAI’s appeal, the CA absolved GVHAI of liability, holding that (a) GVHAI validly exercised proprietary rights in erecting the concrete fence without malice or negligence; and (b) no legal obligation existed for GVHAI, a lower estate, to admit water beyond natural flow.

Issue

Whether GVHAI can be held liable for diversion of water and damage to Spouses Ermino’s property.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Affirming the CA, the Supreme Court held that GVHAI acted within its proprietary rights and lacked malice or negligence, while liability rests solely with E.B. Villarosa for altering the natural flow through bulldozing and failure to provide flood controls.

Exercise of Proprietary Rights by GVHAI

Under Civil Code Article 430, an owner may enclose land without detriment to existing servitudes. GVHAI’s replacement of a steel grille with a concrete fence was aimed at security, not to obstruct natural water flow. Absent conscious intent to harm or failure to exercise ordinary care, no tort liability arises under Articles 20 and 21.

Easements of Waters and Servitude

Articles 637 (Civil Code) and 50 (Water Code) impose on lower estates the duty to receive naturally descending waters and debris, prohibiting works that impede such flow. Servitudes of water are real rights; the dominant estate (Hilltop City) may

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.