31 bulao vs ca.docx

8/18/2019 31 Bulao vs CA.docx

1/8

Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992)

Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for damages in MuTC for having built a

dam on an irrigation canal, causing the waterow to divert to Belleza’s land,

resulting into cro damage! Bulao "led a MT# on the ground that $TC had %urisdiction & denied! He then argued that it was the 'ational (ater $esources

Council that had %urisdiction & denied! MuTC declared Bulao in default ) ruled for

Belleza! Bulao aealed to the $TC *denied!

Held: MuTC had %urisdiction! But to resolve this, determine "rst the nature of the

action! This can be ascertained fr! the ultimate facts averred in the comlaint

constituting the C+! llegations in the comlaint determine the nature of the

action ) conse-uentl. the %urisdiction of the cts!! /t is clear fr! a reading of the

comlaint that it is an action for damages redicated on -uasi*delict lthough the

title of the comlaint 01#amages23 is not necessaril. determinative of the nature of

the action, it would nevertheless indicate that what was contemlated was an

action for damages! llegations of the facts set forth in the comlaint ) not the

ra.er for relief determine the nature of the action.

BULAO CA. The wonderful thing about the servient’s estate’s comlaint was the

allegation that the dominant estate 1maliciousl. ut a dam2 and this hrase laced

it within the court’s %urisdiction! To lace the case within the 'ational (ater

$esources Council 0'($C3’s %urisdiction, allege that dominant estate set u dam

without a ermit in violation of 4# 5678 and too9 control of the water, in eect

aroriated water illegall.!

'ame game: ;urisdiction is rescribed b. law and ac-uired b. court!


2/8

$eublic of the 4hiliines

SU!R"#" COUR$

Manila


3/8

>! 4>,7>?!66 reresenting his unrealized share from the harvest of his

tenantF and

! 4>,666!66 reresenting attorne.Gs fees!

The etitioner did not aeal the decision and the corresonding writ of eecutionwas issued in due time! He moved to -uash the writ but to no avail!

+n March >?, 5@A?, the etitioner lodged before the $egional Trial Court of bra

Branch /, 2 a etition for relief from %udgmentIorder in Civil Case 86! This was

dismissed on the ground that the etitioner neither "led his answer to the comlaint

nor later availed himself of his right to aeal from the %udgment! His motion for

reconsideration was denied!

The etitioner net came to this Court to see9 certiorari with reliminar. in%unction!

His etition was referred to the Court of eals for consideration and ad%udication

on the merits! +n ;ul. ?, 5@@5, the resondent court romulgated a decision

den.ing the etition! 3 His motion for reconsideration having been li9ewise denied,

the case is now before us for review!

The basic issue before us is the -uestion of %urisdiction!

To resolve this, we have to determine "rst the true nature of the action "led with the

court a quo! This can be ascertained from the ultimate facts averred in the

comlaint as constituting the rivate resondentGs cause of action! The settled

rincile is that the allegations of the comlaint determine the nature of the action

and conse-uentl. the %urisdiction of the courts!

This rule alies whether or not thelainti is entitled to recover uon all or some of the claims asserted therein as this

is a matter that can be resolved onl. after and as a result of the trial!

The comlaint in Civil Case 'o! 86 is -uoted as follows:

C+MJS undersigned counsel for the lainti and before this Honorable

Court resectfull. alleges:

5! That lainti is a


4/8

! That the above described arcels of land give a .earl. double cro

.ield in the amount of 8? cavans of clean rice for each croing season

because of the resence of an irrigation s.stem which has eisted for

more than ?6 .ears alread.F

?! That defendantGs roert. is located on a higher elevation in thevicinit. of the above arcels and irrigation ditch which sulies water

to the above arcels must ass b. the land of the defendant before it

reaches the lands of lainti as above*describedF

7! That sometime during the "rst wee9 of #ecember, 5@A>, defendant

Bulao maliciousl. constructed a dam and diverted the ow of the water

towards the west such that the lands of the lainti dried u and the

rice lants withered and diedF

8! That lainti used to harvest from the land above described 8?

cavans of clean rice for ever. croing season and he used to sell his

rice at 47!66 a ganta or 45?6!66 a cavanF

A! That for the 8? cavans of rice which lainti failed to realize because

of the malicious acts of the defendant, lainti failed to realize 8?

cavans of clean rice or 455,>?6!66 b. wa. of damagesF

@! That because of the malicious acts of the defendant, lainti had to

engage the services of counsel to rotect his interest a.ing the

amount of 4>,666!66F

(HJ$J hereofF

0b3 To order defendant to a. damages to the lainti in the amount of

455,>?6!66 reresenting the value of the cros which lainti failed to

realizeF

0c3 To a. attorne.Gs fees in the amount of 4>,666!66F and

0d3 Such other and further reliefs as this Honorable Court ma. deem

%ust and e-uitable in the remises!

The etitioner submits that the allegations in aragrahs E and ? as well as the

ra.er in aragrah 0a3 of the above*-uoted leading show that the Civil Case 86


5/8

involves water and water rights and is thus a water disute! The roer authorit. to

tr. and decide the case is the 'ational (ater $esources Council ursuant to rticle

AA of 4residential #ecree 5678 roviding as follows:

rt! AA! The council shall have original %urisdiction over all disutes

relating to aroriation, utilization, eloitation, develoment, control,conservation and rotection of waters within the meaning and contet

of the rovision of this Code

The etitioner invo9es in this connection the cases of Abe-abe vs!

Manta and an!ay "ater #istrict vs! $abaton! 4

/n the "rst case, the etitioners sought a %udicial con"rmation of their rior vested

right under rticle ?6E of the Civil Code to use the water of nibungan lba. and

Ta%ong Cree9s to irrigate their ricelands ustrean! The. also wanted to en%oin the

rivate resondent from using the water of the cree9s at night to irrigate his

riceland located downstream!

/n the second case, the court was as9ed to revent the Municialit. of 4amlona

from interfering with the management of the Tan%a. (aterwor9s S.stem!

/t was held in both cases that %urisdiction ertained to the 'ational (ater $esources

Council as the issues involved were the aroriation, utilization and control of

water!

But these cases have no alication to the instant controvers.! /t is clear from a

reading of the rivate resondentGs comlaint in Civil Case 86 that it is an action fordamages redicated on a quasi-delict !

quasi-delict has the following elements: a3 the damage suered b. the laintiF b3

the act or omission of the defendant suosedl. constituting fault or negligenceF

and c3 the causal connection between the act and the damage sustained b. the

lainti! 8

ll these elements are set out in the rivate resondentGs comlaint, seci"call. in

aragrahs ?, 8 and A thereof! The damage claimed to have been sustained b.

rivate resondents consists of his loss of harvest and conse-uent loss of income!

The act constituting the fault is the alleged malicious construction of a dam and

diversion of the ow of water b. the etitioner! The said acts allegedl. caused the

interrution of water assing through etitionerGs land towards resondentGs lands,

resulting in the destruction of the resondentGs rice lants! The averments of the

comlaint lainl. ma9e out a case of quasi-delict that ma. be the basis of an action

for damages!


6/8

The Court also notes that the title of the comlaint is DCivil Case

'o! 86 L #amages!D lthough not necessaril. determinative of the nature of the

action, it would nevertheless indicate that what the rivate resondent

contemlated was an action for damages!

/t is ointed out, however, that aragrah 0a3 of the ra.er for relief seems toconve. the imression that the rivate resondent is as9ing for the right to use the

irrigation water and for the recognition b. the etitioner of an easement on his land!

(ould this change the character of Civil Case 86

(e have consistentl. held that the allegations of fact set forth in the comlaint and

not the ra.er for relief will determine the nature of the action! 9 /n the case of #e

avera vs! P%ilippine uberculosis& nc!, 1' this Court declared:

(hile it is true that the comlaint -uestions etitionerGs removal from

the osition of Jecutive Secretar. and see9s her reinstatement

thereto, the nature of the suit is not necessaril. one of quo (arranto!

The nature of the instant suit is one involving a violation of the rights

of the lainti under the B.*Kaws of the Societ., the Civil Code and the

Constitution, which allegedl. renders the individuals resonsible

therefore, accountable for damages, as ma. be gleaned from the

following allegations in the comlaint as constituting the laintiGs

causes of action!

lso worth. of note is the following ronouncement of this Court in Ba)iuoro

vs! Barrios and upas *da! de Atas:11

/t is an aiom in civil rocedure that if the relief demanded is not the

roer one which ma. be granted under the law, it does not

characterize or determine the nature of the laintiGs action, and that

the relief to which the lainti is entitled based on the facts alleged b.

him in his comlaint, although it is not the relief demanded, is what

determines the nature of the action! nd that is the reason wh. it is

generall. added to ra.ers for relief, though not necessar., the words

Dand for such other relief as the law warrants,D or others to the same

eect! So if a lainti alleges, for instance, that the defendant owes

the former a certain amount of mone. and did not a. it at the time

stiulated, and ra.s that the defendant be sentenced to return a

certain ersonal roert. to the lainti, such ra.er will not ma9e or

convert the action of recover. of debt into one of recover. of ersonal

roert., and the court shall grant the roer relief, or sentence the

defendant to a. his debt to the lainti!


7/8

/n an. case, the in%ur. has been done and that is what the rivate resondent was

suing about in his action for damages! The relief he ra.ed for did not change Civil

Case 'o! 86 into a water disute coming under the %urisdiction of the 'ational (ater

$esearch Council!

/t follows that since the court a quo had %urisdiction over the action instituted b. therivate resondent, its decision, which has alread. become "nal and eecutor., can

no longer be disturbed!

CC+$#/'NKO, the etition is #J'/J#, with costs against the etitioner! /t is so

ordered!

Padilla& $ri+o-Aquino and Bellosillo& ,,.& concur.

5 Foototes

5 4resided b. ;udge Koreto K! Seares!

> 4resided b. ;udge 6 SC$ E>6F 'otre #ame Hosital v! 'allee*

4hilis, 5@8 SC$ 5A8F Bautista v! 7!

8 58> SC$ >?!

A ndamo v! /C, 5@5 SC$ 5@?!

@ Bautista v! SC$ >75F Schen9er v! Nemerle, ? SC$ 56E>F Cabigao v! Kim, ?6

4hil! AEEF $osales v! $e.es and +rdoneza, >? 4hil! E?!

56 55> SC$ >E!

55 88 4hil! 5>6 cited in #e Tavera vs! 4hiliine Tuberculosis Societ.,

/nc! 0supra3 and in 4leading and Trial 4ractice b. $icardo ;!


8/8

=ol! 5, 5@A@ Jd!,

! 58A*58@!

31 bulao vs ca.docx

Documents