Andamo vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990
Fernan, C.J.
Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of ones 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.
Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which is
adjacent to that of private respondent corporation, Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc.
Within the land of the latter, waterpaths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were
constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioners land, caused a young man to drown,
damagaed petitioners crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the
livesofthepetitioners and their laborers and some other destructions.
This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by means of inundation
under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages.
Issue: Whether petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by
respondents waterpaths and contrivances on the basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on
quasi-delicts.
Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil 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. 11
Clearly, from petitioners complaint, 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.
It must be stressed that the use of ones 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.

FAUSTO BARREDO VS. GARCIA AND

ALMARIO
PHIL 607
Facts: On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxi driven by Fontanilla and a
carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was overturned and a passenger, 16-year-old boy Garcia, suffered
injuries from which resulted to his death. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was convicted. The
court in the criminal case granted the petition to reserve the civil action against Barredo, the proprietor of the Malate
Taxi and the employer of Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly responsible under culpa aquiliana. It was
undisputed that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the accident as he was driving on the wrong side of the road
at high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. Barredos
theory of defense is that Fontanillas negligence being punishable by the Revised Penal Code, that his liability as
employer is only subsidiary liable but Fontanilla was sued for civil liability, hence, Barredo claims that he cannot be
held liable.

Issue: Whether or not complainants liability as employer of Fontanilla was only subsidiary and not as primarily and
directly responsible under Article 1903 of the Civil Code.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that complainants liability is not only subsidiary but also primary liability. The
Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which ruled that the liability sought to be imposed upon Barredo in
this action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony, but an obligation imposed in Article 1903 of the Civil Code by
reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee.
QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code and is entirely distinct and
independent from a delict or crime as punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In this jurisdiction, the same
negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime under Art. 103 of the RPC;
or create an action for the quasi delict or culpa aquiliana (primary) and the parties injured are free to choice which
course to take. In the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produced two liabilities of Barredo. First, a

subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latters criminal negligence; and second,
Barredos primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an employer in the selection of
his employees or their supervision, under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code. The parties instituted an action for damages
under Art. 1903 of the Civil Code. Barredo was found guilty of negligence for carelessly employing Fontanilla, who
had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding violation. Thus, the petition is
denied. Barredo must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of Art. 1903 of the Civil Code

101 Phil 843 Civil Law Torts and Damages Liability of Parents
Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School. In
March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were inside a
jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle
thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother, Sabina
Exconde, sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the
mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against
Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno.
ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case of his
death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children
who live with them, is obvious. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping
them in their company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means,
while, on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation.
The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin
failed to prove.
On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law, teachers or
directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices
while they are under their custody, but this provision only applies to an institution of arts
and trades and not to any academic educational institution.
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting:
Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for limiting the
liability to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference

is there between them in so far as, concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their
pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty
of watching do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a
position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.

102 Phil 181 Civil Law Torts and Damages Proximate Cause
Pass-midnight in September 1952, Juan Bataclan rode a bus owned by Mariano Medina
from Cavite to Pasay. While on its way, the driver of the bus was driving fast and when he
applied the brakes it cause the bus to be overturned. The driver, the conductor, and some
passengers were able to free themselves from the bus except Bataclan and 3 others. The
passengers called the help of the villagers and as it was dark, the villagers brought torch
with them. The driver and the conductor failed to warn the would-be helpers of the fact that
gasoline has spilled from the overturned bus so a huge fire ensued which engulfed the bus
thereby killing the 4 passengers trapped inside. It was also found later in trial that the tires
of the bus were old.
ISSUE: Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan et al was their burning
by reason of the torches which ignited the gasoline.
HELD: No. The proximate cause was the overturning of the bus which was caused by the
negligence of the driver because he was speeding and also he was already advised by
Medina to change the tires yet he did not. Such negligence resulted to the overturning of the
bus. The torches carried by the would-be helpers are not to be blamed. It is just but natural
for the villagers to respond to the call for help from the passengers and since it is a rural
area which did not have flashlights, torches are the natural source of lighting. Further, the
smell of gas could have been all over the place yet the driver and the conductor failed to
provide warning about said fact to the villagers.
WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE?
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.
And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate

predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person
responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom.