Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Andamo Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    This case discusses a civil suit filed by landowners against a neighboring religious corporation for damages caused by waterpaths and structures built by the corporation on its land. These structures allegedly flooded and eroded the landowners' property. The court had to determine if the civil suit could proceed separately from a related criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil suit for damages due to negligence could move forward independently under the Civil Code articles on quasi-delicts, as the elements of fault, damages, and causation were present. Even if some of the corporation's actions were potentially criminal, a separate civil case for compensation was allowed pursuant to the Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Andamo Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    62 views1 page
    This case discusses a civil suit filed by landowners against a neighboring religious corporation for damages caused by waterpaths and structures built by the corporation on its land. These structures allegedly flooded and eroded the landowners' property. The court had to determine if the civil suit could proceed separately from a related criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil suit for damages due to negligence could move forward independently under the Civil Code articles on quasi-delicts, as the elements of fault, damages, and causation were present. Even if some of the corporation's actions were potentially criminal, a separate civil case for compensation was allowed pursuant to the Code.

    Original Description:

    Torts

    Original Title

    Andamo vs IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a civil suit filed by landowners against a neighboring religious corporation for damages caused by waterpaths and structures built by the corporation on its land. These structures allegedly flooded and eroded the landowners' property. The court had to determine if the civil suit could proceed separately from a related criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil suit for damages due to negligence could move forward independently under the Civil Code articles on quasi-delicts, as the elements of fault, damages, and causation were present. Even if some of the corporation's actions were potentially criminal, a separate civil case for compensation was allowed pursuant to the Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    Andamo Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    This case discusses a civil suit filed by landowners against a neighboring religious corporation for damages caused by waterpaths and structures built by the corporation on its land. These structures allegedly flooded and eroded the landowners' property. The court had to determine if the civil suit could proceed separately from a related criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled that the civil suit for damages due to negligence could move forward independently under the Civil Code articles on quasi-delicts, as the elements of fault, damages, and causation were present. Even if some of the corporation's actions were potentially criminal, a separate civil case for compensation was allowed pursuant to the Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Andamo vs IAC (G.R. No.

    74761 November 6, 1990)


    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. As a result there was an institution of a criminal action
    against officers and directors of herein respondent corporation and subsequently a civil action
    for damages. Due to lack of jurisdiction, the civil case was dismissed due to the criminal case
    remaining unresolved following the provision of Section 3 (a), Rule III of the Rules of Court
    which provides that "criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted
    separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced the civil action cannot be
    instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action."
    Issue: WON a corporation, which has built through its agents, 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
    such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case?
    Held: Yes. The civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasidelicts. 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.
    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 negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.
    Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence", covers not only acts "not punishable by
    law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
    Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
    he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
    allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to recover damages on both
    scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming
    the awards made in the two cases vary.

    You might also like