Photo from Unsplash | Naveen Kumar
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the informal structures operated by the spouses Calimlim on foreshore land in Matabungkay Beach constituted a public nuisance. Despite a lack of necessary permits and the existence of multiple notices to vacate, the spouses Calimlim continued their informal operations, causing obstruction, excessive noise, foul odor, and even fire hazards injurious to their neighboring property, the Villa Alexandra, among others.
The Supreme Court held that such unauthorized occupation and hazardous business practices on public land constituted a public nuisance and consequently warranted the demolition of the said informal structures and eviction of the spouses Calimlim.
The Facts
Spouses Goño are the alleged owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant situated in Barangay Matabungkay, Lian, Batangas. On the other hand, spouses Calimlim operated informal structures and rest houses along the shore of Matabungkay Beach and provided video machines, videoke sets, and other services for tourists. However, the spouses Calimlim failed to receive a foreshore lease of their premises from the DENR. Additionally, the spouses Calimlim did not secure any necessary permits, issue official receipts, or even pay taxes for the use of the land.
These informal structures allegedly obstructed the view of Villa Alexandra on the shore of Matabungkay Beach. Further, the spouses Goño alleged that the operations of the spouses Calimlim produced excessive noise, offensive odor, and even threatened conflagration due to spouses Calimlim’ s open-fire kitchen which once caught fire. In total, the spouses Goño alleged that these activities caused great inconvenience and discomfort to their guests at Villa Alexandra, resulting in an alleged lost income of 50,000 PHP on their part.
As a result, the spouses Goño demanded the spouses Calimlim to remove their structures; however, the latter refused. Consequently, the spouses Goño filed a complaint with the barangay chairperson and even sought help from both the DENR and the DOT. The DENR issued a notice to vacate addressed to the spouses Calilim on November 15, 2015 and a second notice on February 12, 2017; however, the spouses Calimlim still refused.
For their part, the spouses Calimlim alleged that they had been occupying the premises for 50 years, prior to the establishment of Villa Alexandra. Furthermore, they counter that the losses suffered by the spouses Goño are merely a natural consequence of the competition
among similar establishments operating in Matabungkay Beach. On trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Calimlim, ruling that the spouses Goño were unable to prove that the spouses Calimlim operated in bad faith and intentionally caused damage and interference to the Villa Alexandra; thus ruling the incident to be a private nuisance. On appeal, the CA reversed this decision, instead finding the property of the spouses Calimlim to be a public nuisance given that they operated their businesses on public property.
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the informal structures operated by the spouses Calimlim were a public nuisance.
The Supreme Court Decides
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ruled that the informal structures of the spouses Calimlim were indeed a public nuisance; hence, ordering the spouses Calimlim to demolish their informal structures and vacate the premises.
The Court defined a public nuisance as something that “affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal.” Additionally, the Court then turned to the ruling of Municipality of Binan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corp wherein the Court ruled that “to constitute a nuisance per se, the obstruction must hinder the public use of streets, highways, or sidewalks, or the interference with the safety or property of a person must be immediate.”
The Court then found it undisputed that the land on which spouses Calimlim’ s structures were erected is public land, as the land that this property is situated on is foreshore land of which the spouses Calimlim failed to receive a lease for. In fact, DENR recognized this illegal occupancy of foreshore land and had consequently issued Notices to Vacate to spouses Calimlim who invariably ignored them. As a result, the Court held that the spouses Calimlim’s obstruction of and unauthorized occupation of the foreshore land already equate to a public nuisance.
In addition to this, the Court emphasized that the hazardous manner by which spouses Calimlim are operating their business has been especially injurious to spouses Goño and their guests, with adjacent establishments constantly exposed to the threat of conflagration due to spouses Calimlim’s unsafe open-fire kitchen. Finally, the Court questioned the structural integrity and consequent danger to life and limbs of the spouses Calimlim’s informal structures, given that these have been constructed without the necessary building permits.
In total, the Court ruled that the record is devoid of any evidence to negate the injuries suffered by spouses Goño for over a decade already as a result of the subject public nuisance, thereby upholding the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
Source:
- SC: Illegally Built Structures and Businesses on Beaches May Be Demolished for Public Disturbance
- Spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim, represented by Bienvenido I. Calimlim and Roberto B. Cabral vs. Efren G. Goño and Rafaelita R. Goño (G.R. No. 272053, January 14, 2025)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.