THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 74761. November 6, 1990.]

NATIVIDAD V. ANDAMO and

EMMANUEL

R. ANDAMO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (First

Civil Cases Division) and MISSIONARIES OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE,
INC., respondents.
Lope E. Adriano for petitioners.
Padilla Law Office for private respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; NATURE AND PURPOSE THEREOF DETERMINED BY THE
ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT. It is axiomatic that the nature of an action filed in
court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action.
The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it, including the period of prescription,
is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action, made in his argument or
brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. (De Tavera vs.
Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., G.R. No. L-48928, February 25, 1982, 112 SCRA 243.)
The nature of an action is not necessarily determined or controlled by its title or heading but
by the body of the pleading or complaint itself. To avoid possible denial of substantial justice
due to legal technicalities, pleadings as well as remedial laws should be liberally construed so
that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims. (Dominguez vs.
Lee, G.R. No. 74960-61, November 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 703)
2. CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICTS; ELEMENTS THEREOF. 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. (Taylor vs. Manila
Electric Company, 16 Phil. 8; Vergara vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77679, September 30,
1987, 154 SCRA 564)

3. ID; ID; "FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE," CONSTRUED. Article 2176 of the Civil Code
imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused by his act or omission constituting fault
or negligence, and whenever Article 2176 refers to "fault or negligence", it 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. (Virata vs. Ochoa, G.R.
No. L-46179, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 472)
4. ID; ID; DISTINGUISHED FROM CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. According to the Report of
the Code Commission, Article 2177 of the Civil Code though at first sight startling, is not so
novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The
former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent
negligence, which is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having always had
its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such distinction
between criminal negligence and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasi-delito" has been
sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain . . .
5. ID; ID; CIVIL ACTION, ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF THE CRIMINAL CASE.
In Azucena vs. Potenciano, (5 SCRA 468, 470-471), the Court declared that in quasi-delicts,
"(t)he civil action is entirely independent of the criminal case according to Articles 33 and
2177 of the Civil Code. There can be no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the
civil action contemplated in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution
whether it be conviction or acquittal would render meaningless the independent character
of the civil action and the clear injunction in Article 31, that his action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter."
6. ID; ID; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION IN THE CRIMINAL CASE. In the
case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals (176 SCRA 591), this Court held that a quasi-delict
or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its
own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime a
distinction exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasidelicts or culpa extra-contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil
liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or

culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the
criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event of an
acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not
exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of
the civil liability.
7. ID; PROPERTY; USE THEREOF, NOT WITHOUT LIMITATIONS; RECIPROCAL DUTIES
OF ADJOINING LANDOWNERS. It must be stressed that the use of one's 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.
DECISION
FERNAN, J :
p

The pivotal issue in this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is whether 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 quasidelicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
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.

LexLib

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.
In July 1982, petitioners instituted a criminal action, docketed as Criminal Case No. TG 90782, before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 4 (Tagaytay City), against Efren Musngi,
Orlando Sapuay and Rutillo Mallillin, officers and directors of herein respondent corporation,
for destruction by means of injunction under Article 324 of the Revised Penal Code.
Subsequently, on February 22, 1983, petitioners filed another action against respondent
corporation, this time a civil case, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-748, for damages with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the same court. 1
On March 11, 1983, respondent corporation filed its answer to the complaint and opposition to
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Hearings were conducted including ocular
inspections on the land. However, on April 26, 1984, the trial court, acting on respondent
corporation's motion to dismiss or suspend the civil action, issued an order suspending further
hearings in Civil Case No. TG-748 until after judgment in the related Criminal Case No. TG907-82.
Resolving respondent corporation's motion to dismiss filed on June 22, 1984, the trial court
issued on August 27,1984 the disputed order dismissing Civil Case No. TG-748 for lack of
jurisdiction, as the criminal case which was instituted ahead of the civil case was still
unresolved. Said order was anchored on the provision of Section 3 (a), Rule 111 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." 2
Petitioners appealed from that order to the Intermediate Appellate Court. 3
On February 17, 1986, respondent Appellate Court, First Civil Cases Division, promulgated a
decision, 4 affirming the questioned order of the trial court. 5 A motion for reconsideration filed
by petitioners was denied by the Appellate Court in its resolution dated May 19, 1986. 6
Directly at issue is the propriety of the dismissal of Civil Case: No. TG-748 in accordance with
Section 3 (a) of Rule 111 of the Pules of Court. Petitioners contend that the trial court and the
Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Case No. TG-748 since it is predicated on a quasidelict. Petitioners have raised a valid point.

It is axiomatic that the nature of an action filed in court is determined by the facts alleged in
the complaint as constituting the cause of action. 7 The purpose of an action or suit and the
law to govern it, including the period of prescription, is to be determined not by the claim of the
party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself, its
allegations and prayer for relief. 8 The nature of an action is not necessarily determined or
controlled by its title or heading but by the body of the pleading or complaint itself. To avoid
possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities, pleadings as well as remedial
laws should be liberally construed so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove
their respective claims. 9
Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. TG748:

LibLex

4) That within defendant's land, likewise located at Biga (Biluso), Silang, Cavite,
adjacent on the right side of the aforesaid land of plaintiffs, defendant constructed
waterpaths starting from the middle-right portion thereof leading to a big hole or
opening, also constructed by defendant, thru the lower portion of its concrete hollowblocks fence situated on the right side of its cemented gate fronting the provincial
highway, and connected by defendant to a man-height inter-connected cement
culverts which were also constructed and lain by defendant cross-wise beneath the tip
of the said cemented gate, the left-end of the said inter-connected culverts again
connected by defendant to a big hole or opening thru the lower portion of the same
concrete hollow-blocks fence on the left side of the said cemented gate, which hole or
opening is likewise connected by defendant to the cemented mouth of a big canal,
also constructed by defendant, which runs northward towards a big hole or opening
which was also built by defendant thru the lower portion of its concrete hollow-blocks
fence which separates the land of plaintiffs from that of defendant (and which serves
as the exit-point of the floodwater coming from the land of defendant, and at the same
time, the entrance-point of the same floodwater to the land of plaintiffs, year after year,
during rainy or stormy seasons.
"5) That moreover, on the middle-left portion of its land just beside the land of
plaintiffs, defendant also constructed an artificial lake, the base of which is soil, which
utilizes the water being channeled thereto from its water system thru inter-connected
galvanized iron pipes (No. 2) and complimented by rain water during rainy or stormy

seasons, so much so that the water below it seeps into, and the excess water above it
inundates, portions of the adjoining land of plaintiffs.
"6) That as a result of the inundation brought about by defendant's aforementioned
water conductors, contrivances and manipulators, a young man was drowned to
death, while herein plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer, as follows:
"a) Portions of the land of plaintiffs were eroded and converted to deep, wide and long
canals, such that the same can no longer be planted to any crop or plant.
"b) Costly fences constructed by plaintiffs were, on several occasions, washed away.
"c) during rainy and stormy seasons the lives of plaintiffs and their laborers are always
in danger.
"d) Plants and other improvements on other portions of the land of plaintiffs are
exposed to destruction. . . ." 10

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.
In the case of Samson vs. Dionisio, 12 the Court applied Article 1902, now Article 2176 of the
Civil Code and held that "any person who without due authority constructs a bank or dike,
stopping the flow or communication between a creek or a lake and a river, thereby causing
loss and damages to a third party who, like the rest of the residents, is entitled to the use and
enjoyment of the stream or lake, shall be liable to the payment of an indemnity for loss and
damages to the injured party."

While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the property
subject of the instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that petitioners' complaint
sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and will continue to sustain damage due to
the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation. Indeed, the recitals of the
complaint, the alleged presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or omission of
respondent corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and the causal connection
between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing contractual obligation between the
parties make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.

llcd

It must be stressed that the use of one's 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.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for damage caused by his
act or omission constituting fault or negligence, thus:
"Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there
is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict is
governed by the provisions of this chapter."

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. 13
The distinctness of quasi-delicts is shown in Article 2177 of the Civil Code, which states:

"Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant."

According to the Report of the Code Commission "the foregoing provision though at first sight
startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and
civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and
independent negligence, which is a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having
always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such
distinction between criminal negligence and "culpa extra-contractual" or "cuasi-delito" has
been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain . . ." 14
In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 15 this Court held that a quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime a distinction
exists between the civil liability arising from a crime and the responsibility for quasi-delicts or
culpa extra-contractual. The same negligence causing damages may produce civil liability
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extracontractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event of an acquittal where the
court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case
the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability.

prLL

In Azucena vs. Potenciano, 16 the Court declared that in quasi-delicts, "(t)he civil action is
entirely independent of the criminal case according to Articles 33 and 2177 of the Civil Code.
There can be no logical conclusion than this, for to subordinate the civil action contemplated
in the said articles to the result of the criminal prosecution whether it be conviction or
acquittal would render meaningless the independent character of the civil action and the
clear injunction in Article 31, that his action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter."

WHEREFORE,

the

assailed

decision

dated

February

17,

1986

of

the

then Intermediate Appellate Court affirming the order of dismissal of the Regional Trial Court
of Cavite, Branch 18 (Tagaytay City) dated August 17, 1984 is hereby REVERSED and SET

ASIDE. The trial court is ordered to reinstate Civil Case No. TG-748 entitled
"Natividad V. Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo vs. Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette,
Inc." and to proceed with the hearing of the case with dispatch. This decision is immediately
executory. Costs against respondent corporation.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr. and Bidin, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
|||

(Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74761, [November 6, 1990])