G.R. No. 272053 , January 14, 2025
Spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim, represented by Bienvenido I. Calimlim and Roberto B. Cabral, Petitioners, vs. Efren G. Goño and Rafaelita R. Goño, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Efren and Rafaelita Goño, owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas, filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against Spouses Pablo and Patnubay Calimlim. The Goños alleged that the Calimlims operated informal structures, rest houses, sari-sari stores, carinderias, and recreational facilities (video machines, videoke sets, billiard tables) along the shore of Matabungkay Beach. These activities caused excessive noise, offensive odors, and unsanitary disposal of waste, which discomforted Villa Alexandra’s guests, leading some to leave and vow not to return. The structures also obstructed the resort’s view of the sea. The subject land was declared a tourist zone and maritime reserve under Proclamation No. 1801. The Calimlims’ application for a foreshore lease with the DENR was denied, and they allegedly lacked necessary business permits. A fire incident occurred on June 15, 2009, due to an explosion in the main electrical line of one of the Calimlims’ structures. The Goños demanded removal of the structures and filed a barangay complaint, but no settlement was reached. They claimed a loss of income of approximately PHP 50,000. During trial, the Calimlims argued they had occupied the area for over 50 years, prior to Villa Alexandra’s establishment, and that the Goños’ loss was due to normal business competition. The Calimlims failed to present evidence during the hearing proper. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the Goños failed to prove the structures constituted a nuisance. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordering the removal of the structures and awarding damages to the Goños.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal and in finding that the Calimlims’ structures and business operations constituted a nuisance under Articles 694 and 695 of the Civil Code, warranting their abatement and the award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Calimlims’ structures and operations constituted a private nuisance under Article 695 of the Civil Code. The Goños proved the structures were illegally erected on foreshore land within a declared tourist zone without the required government permits and lease. The operations caused excessive noise, offensive smells, unsanitary conditions, and a fire hazard, which offended the senses, threatened safety and health, and materially impaired the comfort and convenience of the Goños’ resort guests, thereby injuring their business. The nuisance was continuous. The Calimlims could not claim a right to maintain the nuisance based on prior occupation or the existence of similar structures. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered the abatement of the nuisance through the removal of the structures and cessation of business operations. The award of temperate damages (PHP 50,000), moral damages (PHP 100,000), exemplary damages (PHP 50,000), and attorney’s fees (PHP 50,000) to the Goños was also proper, as the Calimlims’ acts were willful and in bad faith, causing the Goños pecuniary loss, mental anguish, and anxiety.