REMMAN V CA

Petitioner: REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC

Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS and CRISPIN E. LAT
Citation: G.R. No. 125018
Date of Promulgation: April 6, 2000
Ponente: Belosillo, J.

FACTS:

 REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. (REMMAN), and CRISPIN E. LAT are adjoining landowners.
 REMMAN's land is one and a half (1) meters higher in elevation than that of respondent
Lat.
 Lat noticed that REMMAN's waste disposal lagoon was already overflowing and
inundating Lat's plantation.
 He made several representations with REMMAN but they fell on deaf ears.
 After almost one (1) hectare of Lat's plantation was already inundated with water
containing pig manure, as a result of which the trees growing on the flooded portion
started to wither and die, Lat filed a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory
injunction against REMMAN.
 Lat alleged that the acidity of the soil in his plantation increased because of the overflow
of the water heavy with pig manure from REMMAN's piggery farm.

ISSUE:
Whether or not REMMAN is directly accountable to Lat for the damages sustained by the
latter.

RULING:
Accordingly, petitioners cannot be heard to invoke the act of God or force majeure to
escape liability for the loss or damage sustained by private respondents since they, the
petitioners, were guilty of negligence. This event then was not occasioned exclusively by an act
of God or force majeure; a human factor - negligence or imprudence - had intervened. The effect
then of the force majeure in question may be deemed to have, even if only partly, resulted from
the participation of man. Thus, the whole occurrence was thereby humanized, as it were, and
removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.

As regards the alleged natural easement imposed upon the property of appellee, resort to
pertinent provisions of applicable law is imperative. Under the Civil Code, it is provided:

Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without the
intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which they
carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this easement; neither
can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the burden.

A similar provision is found in the Water Code of the Philippines (P.D. No.1067), which provides:

Art. 50. Lower estates are obliged to receive the water which naturally and without the
intervention of man flow from the higher estates, as well as the stone or earth which they carry
with them.

The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this natural flow, unless
he provides an alternative method of drainage; neither can the owner of the higher estate make
works which will increase this natural flow. marinella

As worded, the two (2) aforecited provisions impose a natural easement upon the lower estate
to receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man descend from higher
states. However, where the waters which flow from a higher state are those which are artificially
collected in man-made lagoons, any damage occasioned thereby entitles the owner of the lower
or servient estate to compensation.

NPC v LUKMAN IBRAHIM

Petitioner: National Power Corporation
Respondent: LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, OMAR PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
MARUHOM, ELIAS G.
MARUHOM, BUCAY G. CORONA,
MARUHOM, FAROUK G. AZCUNA,
MARUHOM, HIDJARA G. GARCIA, JJ.
MARUHOM, ROCANIA G.
MARUHOM, POTRISAM G.
MARUHOM, LUMBA G.
MARUHOM, SINAB G.
MARUHOM, ACMAD G.
MARUHOM, SOLAYMAN G.
MARUHOM, MOHAMAD M.
IBRAHIM, and CAIRONESA M.
IBRAHIM
Citation: G.R. No. 168732
Date of Promulgation: June 29, 2007
Ponente: Azcuna, J.

FACTS:
 Ibrahim owns a parcel of land located in Lanao del Norte.
 In 1978, NAPOCOR took possession of the sub-terrain area of the land and constructed
underground tunnels on the said property.
 The tunnels were apparently being used by NAPOCOR in siphoning the water of Lake Lanao and
in the operation of NAPOCOR’s Agus projects.
  In 1991, Maruhom (one of the co-heirs of Ibrahim) requested Marawi City Water District for a
permit to construct or install a motorized deep well on the parcel of land but it was rejected on
the grounds that the construction would cause danger to lives and property by reason of the
presence of the underground tunnels.
 Maruhom demanded NAPOCOR to pay damages and to vacate the sub-terrain portion of the land.

Issue:
Whether or not Ibrahim is the rightful owner of the sub-terrain area of the land.

RULING:
YES. The sub-terrain portion of the property belongs to Ibrahim.

The Supreme Court cited Article 437 of the Civil Code which provides that: The owner of a parcel of land
is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make
any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and
subject to special laws and ordinances. xxx

Hence, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it. Therefore, Ibrahim
owns the property as well as the sub-terrain area of the land where the underground tunnels were
constructed.

On the issue of just compensation, the Supreme Court also said that Ibrahim should be paid a just
compensation.

Ibrahim could have dug upon their property and built motorized deep wells but was prevented from doing
so by the authorities because of the construction of the tunnels underneath the surface of the land.

Ibrahim still had a legal interest in the sub-terrain portion insofar as they could have excavated the same
for the construction of the deep wells. It has been shown that the underground tunnels have deprived
the plaintiffs of the lawful use of the land and considerably reduced its value.

It was held that: If the government takes property without expropriation and devotes the property to
public use, after many years, the property owner may demand payment of just compensation in the event
restoration of possession is neither convenient nor feasible. This is in accordance with the principle that
persons shall not be deprived of their property except by competent authority and for public use and
always upon payment of just compensation.