Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Magbanua Vs IAC

Uploaded by

Omar Muktar Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Magbanua Vs IAC

Uploaded by

Omar Muktar Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AGAPITO MAGBANUA, et al., vs.

IAC, EDUARDO, et al., All Surnamed PEREZ,


G.R. Nos. L-66870-72 June 29, 1985

FACTS:

A joint decision was rendered in CAR Case Nos. 827, 828 and 829 of the defunct
Court of Agrarian Relations stationed in San Carlos City because the six plaintiffs
who are the petitioners are all alleged that they are share tenants of the defendants
and that the defendants diverted the free flow of water from their farm lots which
caused portions of their landholdings to dry up to their great damage and prejudice;
and that they were told by the defendants' overseer to vacate their respective areas
for they could not plant palay any longer due to lack of water. They prayed that
they be declared as leasehold tenants and that the defendants be ordered to pay
attorney's fees and different kinds of damages.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs which declares all the
plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases to be maintained as agricultural lessees in
peaceful cultivation in their respective landholdings, prohibits defendants from
closing and/or disrupting the free flow of water supplying plaintiffs' landholdings
and orders the defendants to pay all plaintiffs individually moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees. In awarding damages and attorney's fees, the trial
court said that they noted the manifestation submitted by plaintiffs wherein they
have attached photographs of their dried-up landholdings and wilted palay crops.
The allegations in this pleading and the accompanying pictures were never rebutted
by the defendants. This Court holds the opinion that between the period of the
inspection by the PC Team on February 24, 1982 and June 13, 1982 when
plaintiffs' manifestation was filed, there has been complete closure of water
supplying plaintiffs' landholdings which resulted to the drying up of the same that
greatly hampered the healthy growth of the palay crop. This Court does not believe
that the disruption of the water supply which led to the very poor harvest is due to
the fault/negligence of the plaintiffs.

The defendants appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which deleted the
award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, in deleting the
questioned award the Intermediate Appellate Court said that there is no evidence
showing that, in dealing with plaintiffs, defendants acted fraudulently or in bad
faith. There is no showing either that attorney's fees are recoverable under Art:
2208, Civil Code.

ISSUE:
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to moral and exemplary damages and the
attorney's fees which had been awarded by the trial court.

HELD:

Under the law, the landowner has an obligation to keep the tenant in the peaceful
and continuous cultivation of his landholding. A disturbance of possession, such as
the act complained of, is violative of the law.
The plaintiff-appellant is entitled to moral damages and exemplary damages to be
paid by defendant. Let this be a warning to those who flout the lofty purpose of the
agrarian reform program. Under the facts of the case, the plaintiffs are entitled to
moral damages. Article 2219 of the Civil Code permits the award of moral
damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of the same code and the latter stipulates
that: "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage. “The petitioners are also entitled to exemplary damages because the
defendants acted in an oppressive manner. (Art. 2232. Civil Code.)

Plaintiffs have all their legal rights to protect their interests under the law in filing
these cases, for what the defendants have done to them, and as such they are
entitled attorney's fees.

It appears that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in
order to make them vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the
plaintiffs' rights and caused prejudice to the latter by the unjustified diversion of
the water. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy