Spouses Calimlim v. Goño [January 14, 2025]

By •

G.R. No. 272053 – SPOUSES PABLO CALIMLIM and PATNUBAY ISLA CALIMLIM, represented by Bienvenido I. Calimlim and Roberto B. Cabral, petitioners, vs. EFREN G. GOÑO and RAFAELITA R. GOÑO, respondents.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A nuisance has also been considered public when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury. It is an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public. Moreover, houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances.

Facts

In January 2012, Sps. Goño filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against Sps. Calimlim.

Sps. Goño alleged that they own and operate Villa Alexandra in Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas. Meanwhile, Sps. Calimlim operated informal structures and rest houses along the shore of Matabungkay Beach and provided video machines, videoke sets, and billiard tables with assortment of sari-sari stores and carinderias to tourists.

Sps. Goño alleged the following:

  • The structures constructed by Sps. Calimlim obstructed the view of Villa Alexandra on the shore of the beach.
  • The structures stood on a piece of land declared as a tourist zone and maritime reserve of the sea.
  • The DENR denied Sps. Calimlim’s application for a foreshore lease.
  • Sps. Calimlim did not secure the necessary permits, nor did they issue official receipts or pay taxes on their business.
  • Sps. Calimlim’s operations produced excessive noise, offensive odor, and made the water coming from their toilets seep into the ground and in the open dining area of Villa Alexandra.
  • Sps. Calimlim failed disposed of human excrement in a way that is nauseating and repulsive to the guests of Villa Alexandra.
  • Sps. Calimlim maintained open-fire kitchens where their guests could cook on makeshift stoves.
  • In June 2009, Sps. Goño heard an explosion which resulting in fire which was not put out until respondent Efren brought a fire extinguisher from Villa Alexandra.
  • Sps. Goño demanded that Sps. Calimlim remove the structures but the latter refused.

During hearing, a DENR personnel testified that two Notices to Vacate were issued against Sps. Calimlim. Sps. Goño also alleged that they reached out to the Department of Tourism to remedy the situation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Sps. Goño’s complaint, which the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issues

Did the CA err in reversing the RTC’s decision dismissing Sps. Goño’s complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against Sps. Calimlim?

Ruling and Discussion

No. The CA did not err in reversing the RTC’s decision dismissing Sps. Goño’s complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against Sps. Calimlim.

Spouses Calimlim’s structures are a public nuisance.

A nuisance may either be public or private. A public nuisance “affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal.” A nuisance has also been considered public “when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury. It is an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public.” Moreover, “houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances.”

Here, while the rest house and facilities provided by Sps. Calimlim are not, by themselves a nuisance, they are, under the circumstances, a public nuisance.

It is undisputed that the land on which Sps. Calimlim’s structures were erected is public land, i.e., a foreshore land. While foreshore land is disposable land the law sets particular conditions for its authorized use. Section 61 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, as amended, provides that foreshore lands may not be disposed only by lease. However, as admitted by Sps. Calimlim, the DENR denied their application for a foreshore lease agreement. The DENR even recognized their illegal occupancy and consequently issued Notices to Vacate.

Further, the hazardous manner by which Sps. Calimlim are operating their business has been especially injurious to spouses Goño and their guests – the unclean toilet water seeps into the dining area of Villa Alexandra and underground; the threat of conflagration due to Sps. Calimlim’s open-fire kitchen; the lack of necessary building permit which puts in question its structural integrity of Sps. Calimlim’s structures, which poses danger; and the obstruction caused by Sps. Calimlim’s structures which interferes with the safety and property of those concerned.

dispositive

Petition dismissed. Decision and Resolution of the CA affirmed.

Scroll to Top