FILINVEST LAND, INC.,
Petitioner, -
versus - FLOOD-AFFECTED
HOMEOWNERS OF MERITVILLE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 165955
Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 10, 2007 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing
the Decision[1] dated
The
undisputed facts are:
Filinvest
Land, Inc., petitioner, is a domestic corporation engaged in realty development
business. Among its real estate development
ventures is Meritville Townhouse Subdivision (Meritville), the first low-cost townhouse
project in Pulang Lupa, Las Piñas City.
The project site is located near the heavily-silted
Respondents
herein, who purchased their housing units from petitioner, are fifty-four (54)
of the residents of Meritville.
Subsequently, the area around Meritville was developed. New subdivisions
were built with elevations higher than that of Meritville. This development turned Meritville into a
catch basin from rains during the wet season and from water coming from the
Due to
perennial flood, respondents’ townhouses suffered severe damages. On various
dates, specifically on
Petitioner
then installed in the area a pumping station with a capacity of 6,000 gallons
per minute. It also improved the
drainage system. But these measures were not enough. Thus, the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation declared the affected townhouses “unacceptable collaterals.”
On
In its
answer, petitioner countered, among others, that respondents took appropriate
measures, such as the installation of a pumping station and the improvement of
the drainage, to prevent and control the flooding of Meritville; and that these
measures had been approved by the local government of Las Piñas City.
During
the proceedings before the HLURB, the Arbiter conducted an ocular inspection of
the area and found that:
1. Flooding
still recurs in the area with an average depth of approximately 1.25 meters,
particularly along Medal Street…Majority of the affected houses have damaged
appliances, furniture, wall partitioning, and panel doors.
2. It
seems that the pump provided by the owner/developer located within Orchard
Homes, adjacent to
3. The
operation of the said pump was creating disturbing loud noise despite enclosed
housing provided by the owner/developer.
The
Arbiter also found that petitioner failed to secure the conformity of the
affected homeowners before it installed its drainage system; and that it did
not “observe honesty and good faith in solving the issue at bar.”
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1.
Enjoining the respondent from collecting the
amortization payment from the complainants until such time that the flooding
problem is rectified to the satisfaction of the complainants;
2.
Ordering the respondent to upgrade the physical
elevation of the affected streets and alleys and elevate the units from Block
17 to 25, maintaining the material specification, interior and exterior
finishes, including the improvements, with the said respondent providing for
free temporary shelters with complete amenities.
In the alternative, to move
the affected homeowners to other flood free areas of respondent’s subdivision
with units of similar area on a no money-out arrangement.
3. In the event the respondent would opt for a
sell-back of the affected seventy-seven (77) units, the respondent is directed
to compensate the complainants for each unit based on the present market value,
plus expenses on improvements on the units, plus moral and exemplary damages in
the amount of P25,000.00 for each complainant homeowner.
However, it is understood that
to the extent that the complainants have not yet paid in full the agreed
consideration, the corresponding value thereof should be deducted from the
foregoing.
4. Directing the respondent to pay the amount of
P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Upon
appeal by petitioner, the HLURB Board of Commissioners rendered its Decision
affirming the Arbiter’s judgment with modification, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Office below is MODIFIED with the deletion of directive No. 2 thereof. Furthermore,
in order to determine the present market value of the affected lots as well as
the improvements thereon for purposes of sell back, a Board of Appraisers
consisting of three members, shall be constituted as follows:
a.
Complainant and respondent shall each select its
representative.
b.
The parties will then pick as third member, a person
mutually acceptable, to come from a list of independent real estate appraisers.
c.
The Board of Appraisers shall complete its task and
shall submit its report to the Board within 60 days.
d.
The parties shall equally share the costs of the
appraisers.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner
then interposed an appeal to the Office of the President.
In its Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the Decision of the HLURB First Division modifying the decision of
the Arbiter are hereby adopted by reference.
SO ORDERED.
Forthwith,
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
In its
Decision dated
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the
Hence,
the instant petition.
The
core issue before us is whether the flooding in the Meritville has been caused
by petitioner’s negligence.
Article
1170 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the
tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
In Philippine
National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[3] we
defined negligence as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man,
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man
would do.” It is the failure to observe
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances just
demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.[4] In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa
Montessori Internationale,[5] we
reiterated the rule that negligence is never presumed but must be proven by
whoever alleges it. In determining
whether or not a party acted negligently, the constant test is: “Did the
defendant in doing the negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence.”[6]
In
light of the foregoing principles, we hold that negligence cannot be attributed
to petitioner.
First,
it is not disputed that the Meritville is the first subdivision to be developed
in the locality and that subsequent developments elevated the surrounding areas
to a level higher by more than one meter than that of Meritville. Naturally, the water from these surrounding areas
would flow to the lower area which is Meritville. It has
to be emphasized that prior to these developments, there was no flooding in the
subdivision.
Second,
we recall the finding of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter that the
Is petitioner
liable for its failure to address the silting problem of the
Petitioner
contends that under Republic Act No. 7924,[7] it
is the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) which should shoulder the
responsibility, invoking Section 3, which partly reads:
SEC. 3. Scope of MMDA Services. – Metro-wide services under the jurisdiction of the MMDA are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual local government units (LGUs) comprising Metropolitan Manila. These services shall include:
(a) Development planning which includes the preparation of medium and long-term development plans; the development, evaluation and packaging of projects; investments programming; and coordination and monitoring of plan, program and project implementation.
x x
x
(d) Flood control and sewerage management, which include the formulation and implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and sewerage system.
x x x
SEC. 5,
provides in part:
(a) Formulate, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium and long-term plans and programs for the delivery of metro-wide services, land use and physical development within Metropolitan Manila, consistent with national development objectives and priorities.
(b) Prepare, coordinate and regulate the implementation of medium-term investment programs for metro-wide services which shall indicate sources and uses of funds for priority programs and projects, and which shall include the packaging of projects and presentation to funding institutions; x x x
(g) Perform other related functions required to
achieve the objectives of the MMDA, including the undertaking of delivery of
basic services to the local government units, when deemed necessary subject to
prior coordination with and consent of the local government unit concerned.
In Metropolitan
What is
pertinent to respondents’ cause is Section 17 of the Local Government Code quoted
as follows:
SEC. 17. Basic Services and Facilities –
(a)
Local
government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue
exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested
upon them. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of
national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local
government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such
other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or
incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and
facilities enumerated herein.
(b)
Such
basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to the following:
For a Municipality:
x x x
(viii) Infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the
needs of the residents of the municipality and which are funded out of the
municipal funds including but not limited to municipal roads and bridges;
school buildings and other facilities for public elementary and secondary
schools; clinics, health centers and other health facilities necessary to carry
out health services; communal irrigation, small water impounding projects and
other similar projects, fish ports; artesian wells, spring development,
rainwater collectors and water supply systems; seawalls, dikes, drainage and
sewerage; and flood control, traffic signals and road signs, and similar facilities.
x x x
4) For A City:
All the services and facilities of the municipality and province x x x
From the
above provisions, it is the city government of Las Piñas City which has the duty
to control the flood in Meritville Townhouse Subdivision.
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77799 are REVERSED.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 42-48. Ponencia by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
[2]
[3] G.R. No. 159270,
[4] Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping
Agency Corp. v. Borja, G.R. No. 143008,
[5] G.R. Nos. 149454 & 149507,
[6] United Coconut Planters Bank v.
Ramos, G.R. No. 147800,
[7] An Act creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, defining its powers and functions, providing funds therefor and for other purposes.
[8] G.R. No. 135962,
[9] G.R. No. 130230,