SPOUSES ERMINO v. GOLDEN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
,
G.R. No. 180808
August 15, 2018
Caguiao, J:
Quick Facts:
Sps. Ermino are residents of Alco Homes. While E.B Villarosa is the developer of Hilltop City
Subdivision located above Alco Homes.
Sps. Ermino filed a complaint against E.B Villarosa, for the volume of water that hit Ermino’s
house. The sps. alleged that E.B Villarosa was negligent to provide for flood control devices.
Sps. Ermino also claimed that GVHAI committed a wrongful act in the construction of concrete
fence which also diverted the flow of water.
Court ruled that E.B Villarosa was negligent and not GVHAI
Facts: Spouses Ermino are residents of Alco Homes, a subdivision located beside Golden Village
Subdivision. There was continuous heavy rain which caused a large volume of water to fall from the
hilltop subdivision to the subdivisions below. The volume of water directly hit Spouses Ermino's house
and damaged their fence, furniture, appliances and car.
Spouses Ermino filed a complaint for damages against E.B. Villarosa, the developer of Hilltop City
Subdivision. The Hilltop City Subdivision is found at the upper portion of Alco Homes, making it a higher
estate, while Golden Village is located beside Alco Homes, which makes both Alco Homes and Golden
Village lower estates vis-a-vis Hilltop City Subdivision.
Spouses Ermino blamed E.B. Villarosa for negligently failing to observe Department of Environment and
Natural Resources rules and regulations and to provide retaining walls and other flood control devices
which could have prevented the softening of the earth and consequent inundation. They likewise
claimed that GVHAI committed a wrongful act in constructing the concrete fence which diverted the
flow of water to Alco Homes, hence, making it equally liable to Spouses Ermino.
E.B. Villarosa argued that the location of the house of Spouses Ermino is located at the lower portion of
the Dagong Creek and is indeed flooded every time there is a heavy downpour, and that the damage
was further aggravated by GVHAI's construction of the concrete fence. Meanwhile, GVHAI averred that
the construction of the concrete fence was in the exercise of its proprietary rights and that it was done
in order to prevent outsiders from using the steel grille from entering the subdivision.
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC held that the bulldozing by E.B. Villarosa of the proposed Hilltop City Subdivision made the soil
soft that it could easily be carried by a flow of water and that if GVHAI did not change the steel grille
gate to concrete fence between its subdivision and Alco Homes, the flow of water would have just
passed by. Thus, both E.B. Villarosa and GVHAI were negligent and liable to Spouses Ermino.
Ruling of the CA
The CA reversed the RTC's Decision and found no liability on the part of GVHAI. The CA held that indeed,
GVHAI exercised its proprietary rights when it constructed the concrete fence and that it was also not
negligent.
Issue: Whether GVHAI was responsible for the damage to Spouses Ermino's properties?
Held: No, the bulldozing and construction works done by E.B. Villarosa made Alco Homes and Golden
Village's obligation, as lower estates, more burdensome than what the law contemplated. Lower estates
are only obliged to receive water naturally flowing from higher estates and such should be free from any
human intervention. In the instant case, what flowed from Hilltop City Subdivision was not water that
naturally flowed from a higher estate. The bulldozing and flattening of the hills led to the softening of
the soil that could then be easily carried by the current of water whenever it rained. Thus, Alco Homes
and Golden Village are not anymore obligated to receive such waters and earth coming from Hilltop City
Subdivision.
The Court also agrees with the CA's observation that the concrete fence cannot be considered as an
impediment to Golden Village's obligation to receive the water, because if only naturally flowing water,
without any human intervention, cascaded down from the Hilltop City Subdivision, the concrete fence
would not pose as an obstruction to its flow.
Therefore, it is ineluctably clear that E.B. Villarosa is responsible for the damage suffered by Spouses
Ermino. E.B. Villarosa should have provided for the necessary measures such as retaining walls and
drainage so that the large volume of water emanating from it would not unduly cause inconvenience, if
not injury, to the lower estates. E.B. Villarosa's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. Had it
only exercised prudence, reasonable care and caution in the construction of Hilltop City Subdivision,
then Spouses Ermino would not have experienced the injury that they suffered.
