3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 195

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

*
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.

Civil Law; 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.—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. 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.
Same; Same; Quasi-delicts; Elements of quasi-delict.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; There is an assertion of a causal connection
between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by
petitioners; Case at bar.—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.

_______________

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

* THIRD DIVISION.

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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 preexisting
contractual obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi-
delict or culpa aquiliana.—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 ramains 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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 to recover
damages on both scores.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.
—In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the

acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrele-

197

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 197

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

vant 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.
Same; Same; Property; 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.—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.

PETITION for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to review the

decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Lope E. Adriano for petitioners.
     Padilla Law Office for private respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.:

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 quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case
can proceed independently of the criminal case.
The antecedent facts are as follows:

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

Petitioner spouses Emmanuel and Natividad Andamo are the

owners of a parcel of land situated in Biga (Biluso) Silang,

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

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.
In July 1982, petitioners instituted a criminal action, docketed as
Criminal Case No. TG-907-82, 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 inundation
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 1
issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction before the same court.
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. TG-
907-82.
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 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

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 27-30.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

199

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 199

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal

2
action.”
Petitioners
3
appealed from that order to the Intermediate Appellate
Court.
On February 17, 1986, respondent Appellate
4
Court, First Civil
Cases Division, promulgated 5
a decision, affirming the questioned
order of the trial court. A motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioners was6 denied by the Appellate Court in its resolution dated
May 19, 1986.
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
Rules 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 quasi-delict. 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
7
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
8
rather by the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer
for relief. 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, plead-

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 33.
3 AC-G.R. CV No. 04340.
4 Through Associate Justice Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa, ponente, with Presiding
Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., and Associate Justices Eduardo P. Caguioa and Leonor
Ines-Luciano, concurring.
5 Rollo, pp. 16-24.
6 Rollo, p. 26.
7 Republic v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-35512, February 29, 1988, 158 SCRA 282;
Alger Electric, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34298, February 28, 1985, 135
SCRA 3; Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 71375, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 161.
8 De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., G.R. No. L-48928, February
25, 1982, 112 SCRA 243.

200

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

ings as well as remedial laws should be liberally construed so that

the litigants
9
may have ample opportunity to prove their respective
claims.
Quoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of petitioners’
complaint in Civil Case No. TG-748:

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
middleright portion thereof leading to a big hole or opening, also
constructed by defendant, thru the lower portion of its concrete
hollow-blocks 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:

_______________

9 Dominguez vs. Lee, G.R. No. 74960-61, November 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 703.

201

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 201

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

“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
10
plaintiffs are exposed to destruction. x x x.”

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
11
plaintiff.
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.
12
In the case of Samson vs. Dionisio, 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

_______________

10 Rollo, pp. 27-28.

11 Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil. 8; Vergara vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 77679, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 564.
12 11 Phil. 538 (1908).

202

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

privately owned, the fact ramains 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 quasidelict or culpa aquiliana.
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 and 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

203

VOL. 191, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 203

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

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,
13
assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
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
14
of the Supreme Court of Spain x x x.”
15
In the case of Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 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

_______________

13 Virata vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. L-46179, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 472.
14 Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines,
January 26, 1948, p. 162.
15 G.R. No. 48541, August 21, 1989, 176 SCRA 591.

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
3/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 191

extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction

of the civil liability. 16
In Azucena vs. Potenciano, the Court declared that in
quasidelicts, “(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., On leave.

Decision reversed and set aside.

——o0o——

_______________

16 No. L-14028, June 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 468, 470-471.

205

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017826ce183625a33bf8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10