G.R. No. 180808. August 15, 2018.
SPOUSES ABRAHAM AND MELCHORA ERMINO, PETITIONERS, V. GOLDEN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY LETICIA C. INUKAI, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Ermino reside in Alco Homes, a subdivision adjacent to respondent Golden Village Homeowners Association, Inc.’s (GVHAI) subdivision. Both are lower estates relative to the Hilltop City Subdivision, developed by E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. (E.B. Villarosa). In August and September 1995, continuous heavy rains caused a large volume of water to flow from the denuded Hilltop City Subdivision down to the lower estates. This flow directly hit and damaged the Ermonos’ house, fence, furniture, appliances, and car.
The spouses filed a complaint for damages against E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI. They alleged E.B. Villarosa was negligent in failing to provide adequate flood control measures. They also impleaded GVHAI, claiming its replacement of a steel grille gate with a concrete fence between Golden Village and Alco Homes wrongfully diverted the natural flow of water towards their property, exacerbating the damage. The Regional Trial Court found both defendants jointly and severally liable. Only GVHAI appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving GVHAI from liability for the damages suffered by the Spouses Ermino.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The legal logic centered on the absence of wrongful act or negligence on GVHAI’s part and the application of civil law principles on servitudes.
First, the Court found GVHAI did not act with malice or bad faith. Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code require a willful or negligent act contrary to law, morals, or good customs. GVHAI constructed the concrete fence in the legitimate exercise of its proprietary rights to secure its subdivision from outsiders, not to cause harm. The act itself was not illicit.
Second, the Court applied the principle of “aqua currit et debet currere ut currere solebat” (water runs and ought to run as it is wont to run). Under Article 637 of the Civil Code, a lower estate is obliged to receive waters naturally descending from a higher estate. However, this natural servitude does not obligate the lower estate to receive water, earth, or rocks resulting from the higher owner’s negligence or artificial work. The massive flow that damaged the Ermonos’ property was not natural surface water but an artificial accumulation caused by E.B. Villarosa’s negligent development, which denuded the land and failed to install proper drainage. GVHAI, as a lower estate, had no obligation to receive this artificially augmented flow.
The concrete fence was not the proximate cause of the damage. The CA correctly noted that if only natural water had flowed, the fence would not have been an obstruction. The primary and proximate cause was E.B. Villarosa’s negligence in creating an artificial condition on the higher estate. Therefore, GVHAI was correctly absolved of liability.