GR 101983; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101983 February 1, 1993
HONORIO BULAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RTC JUDGE FRANCISCO VILLARTA and SANTIAGO BELLEZA, respondents.
FACTS
On April 25, 1983, respondent Santiago Belleza filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Honorio Bulao before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. The petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, arguing the real issue involved ownership, possession of land, and real rights concerning the use of ditches, making it cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The motion was denied. The petitioner failed to answer and was declared in default. He then moved for reconsideration, this time claiming the National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction as the case involved rights to utilize water. This motion was also denied. The court proceeded to receive the private respondent’s evidence and rendered a judgment by default on October 4, 1984, ordering the petitioner to pay damages. The petitioner did not appeal. After a writ of execution was issued, he filed a petition for relief from judgment with the Regional Trial Court, which was dismissed. His subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was referred to the Court of Appeals, which denied it. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Circuit Trial Court had jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 70, or if jurisdiction properly pertained to the National Water Resources Council as the case involved a water dispute.
RULING
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the nature of the action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleged that the petitioner maliciously constructed a dam and diverted water flow, causing the respondent’s rice plants to wither and die, resulting in lost harvest and income. These averments plainly made out a case of quasi-delict (an action for damages), with all its elements present: damage suffered by the plaintiff, a negligent or faulty act by the defendant, and a causal connection between the act and the damage. The fact that part of the prayer sought an order to allow water to flow unhampered did not convert the action into a water dispute concerning the appropriation, utilization, or control of water under the jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council. The allegations of fact, not the prayer for relief, determine the nature of the action. Since the court a quo had jurisdiction, its final and executory decision could no longer be disturbed. The petition was denied.