Calimlim v. Gońo
Spouses Calimlim v. Spouses Gońo, G.R. No. 272053, January 14, 2025
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Civil Law
- public nuisance
- abatement of nuisance
- foreshore encroachment
- barangay conciliation
- judicial affidavit rule
- Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC
- Rule 45 petition
- temperate damages
- moral damages
- exemplary damages
- attorney's fees
- legal interest
- DENR foreshore lease denial
I. Facts of the Case
Spouses Efren G. Gońo and Rafaelita R. Gońo owned and operated Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas, while spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim operated informal structures, rest houses, and related businesses along Matabungkay Beach. The Gońos filed an action for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction after claiming that the Calimlims’ unauthorized structures and operations caused unreasonable interference with their resort—through obstruction of view, offensive noise and odor, unsanitary toilet seepage, inadequate disposal of human waste, and hazardous activities that allegedly led to a fire in the resort’s electrical line.
The Gońos, asserting that they owned and operated Villa Alexandra, filed (January 3, 2012) a complaint in the RTC, Nasugbu, Batangas for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against the Calimlims, alleging their beach structures and operations caused unreasonable interference with public rights and resort operations.
January 12, 2012
The RTC Branch 14 denied the Gońos’ prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction for lack of an affidavit of merit attached to the complaint.
July 11, 2012
Court-annexed mediation was conducted following motions filed in April 2012; the Mediator’s Report dated July 11, 2012 reflected that mediation was unsuccessful.
September 3, 2012
The RTC granted the Calimlims’ motion for substitution of parties after the death of the original Calimlim spouses, and denied the Gońos’ motion for reconsideration regarding the earlier denial of TRO/preliminary injunction.
The RTC referred the case for judicial dispute resolution; as reflected in its order dated April 28, 2014, no amicable settlement was reached and the case was returned to Branch 14 for trial and resolution on the merits.
At pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among others, that the Calimlims had no certificates of title over the lot; that they rented rooms to tourists; that they operated sari-sari stores/carinderias, billiard tables, and videoke machines; and that DENR denied the Calimlims’ foreshore lease application; the Gońos also served demands to demolish and cease operations.
During trial, only the Gońos presented evidence; the RTC considered the Calimlims to have waived their right to present evidence for failure to present evidence on the dates stated in the pre-trial order.
November 16, 2020
The RTC dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the Gońos failed to prove damage and intentional or unreasonable (or negligent) interference; that the claimed income loss was not shown to be directly attributable given competing businesses; that there was no obstruction of light and view based on the photographs; and that alleged water seepage/fire did not amount to substantial harm; it also dismissed the Calimlims’ counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof of bad faith on the part of the Gońos.
September 13, 2023
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735, ordered the demolition of the illegal structures and the vacation of the premises, and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to the Gońos.
February 1, 2024
The Court of Appeals denied the Calimlims’ motion for reconsideration.
January 14, 2025
The Supreme Court dismissed the Calimlims’ Rule 45 petition, finding no reversible error concerning admission of the Gońos’ exhibits and affirming that the Calimlims’ structures and operations constituted a public nuisance; the Court sustained the CA’s awards including damages, legal interest, and attorney’s fees.
II. Issues
Whether or not the trial court (and the Court of Appeals) committed reversible error by admitting the Gońos’ documentary exhibits under the Judicial Affidavit Rule despite the Calimlims’ claim of violation of Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC.
Whether or not the Calimlims’ grounds for objecting to admitted evidence were considered waived because they were not raised at the proper time.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in classifying the Calimlims’ activities and structures as constituting a public nuisance rather than a private nuisance.
Whether or not the Gońos were entitled to abatement and related relief and damages (temperate, moral, exemplary) and attorney’s fees based on the alleged nuisance and the circumstances of the Calimlims’ occupancy and operations.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the trial court (and the Court of Appeals) committed reversible error by admitting the Gońos’ documentary exhibits under the Judicial Affidavit Rule despite the Calimlims’ claim of violation of Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC.
The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the admission of the Gońos’ documentary exhibits and held that there was no violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule warranting exclusion.
How the Court reasoned
- A Rule 45 petition generally raises questions of law, but the Court still addressed the evidentiary concern raised by the Calimlims.
- The Court held there was no violation that required the exclusion of already-admitted documentary evidence.
- The rationale was that the witness who identified the exhibits affirmed the contents and identification in open court.
- Thus, the alleged defect under the Judicial Affidavit Rule did not undermine the reliability of the documentary exhibits already admitted.
- Because the Court found no reversible error on the evidentiary issue, it sustained the CA’s overall disposition.
Rule applied
Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), in relation to the rules governing identification and admission of evidence
Whether or not the Calimlims’ grounds for objecting to admitted evidence were considered waived because they were not raised at the proper time.
The Supreme Court treated the Calimlims’ objections as waived because they were not raised at the proper time.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court emphasized the procedural principle that objections must be raised at the proper time to be considered.
- It noted that the Calimlims’ challenge did not prosper because the objection grounds were not presented in the manner and timing required by the rules.
- As a result, any asserted basis to exclude evidence was treated as waived.
- This procedural posture supported sustaining the admission and consideration of the evidence presented by the Gońos.
Rule applied
Rules of court on objection to evidence and the concept of waiver when objections are not timely raised
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in classifying the Calimlims’ activities and structures as constituting a public nuisance rather than a private nuisance.
The Court of Appeals correctly classified the Calimlims’ structures and operations as a public nuisance due to unreasonable interference with public rights and encroachment on public property.
How the Court reasoned
- A public nuisance exists when there is unreasonable interference with public rights, such as when conduct directly encroaches on public property or causes a common injury.
- The Court agreed with the CA that the Calimlims’ structures were erected on a foreshore/tourist zone area without the necessary authority.
- The Court considered the operational hazards and the effects of the structures and activities on a broader community, including resort guests and the public.
- Because the unauthorized encroachment on public foreshore land and the harmful/obstructive operations were shown, the nuisance was properly treated as public rather than merely private.
- Accordingly, the CA’s order for demolition and vacation aligned with the nature of the nuisance found.
Rule applied
Article 694 of the Civil Code (definition and basis of nuisance), and the doctrine distinguishing public and private nuisance
Whether or not the Gońos were entitled to abatement and related relief and damages (temperate, moral, exemplary) and attorney’s fees based on the alleged nuisance and the circumstances of the Calimlims’ occupancy and operations.
The Gońos were entitled to abatement and the related monetary reliefs, including temperate, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and legal interest, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court sustained the CA’s finding that the Calimlims’ structures and operations constituted a public nuisance, which justified abatement.
- It ruled that temperate damages were proper because the Gońos failed to prove the exact amount of specific business losses, but there was still a basis to grant compensatory relief.
- The Court also sustained moral and exemplary damages due to the circumstances surrounding the nuisance, and the award of attorney’s fees as part of the relief granted to a prevailing party in actions to abate nuisance.
Rule applied
Article 694 of the Civil Code (nuisance and related civil consequences), and the Supreme Court’s established standards for damages (including temperate damages where exact amounts are not proven)
Doctrines
A public nuisance exists where there is unreasonable interference with public rights by directly encroaching on public property or causing a common injury.
No violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule warranting exclusion of evidence already admitted exists when the witness affirmed the contents and identification of the documentary exhibits in open court.
Objection grounds not raised at the proper time are considered waived.
Final Disposition
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 13, 2023 and Resolution dated February 1, 2024 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735 are AFFIRMED.
Notes
The RTC dismissed the complaint on lack of proof of damage, intentional/unreasonable interference, obstruction based on photographs, and substantial harm; however, the CA found and the Supreme Court affirmed that the Calimlims’ unauthorized beach structures and hazardous operations constituted a public nuisance warranting abatement and damages.