Case Digest | Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
330 SCRA 145
Facts:
Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN), and Crispin Lat are adjoining landowners. The land of Lat containing an area of 1.8 hectares is agricultural and planted mostly with fruit trees while REMMAN occupies a land area of fifteen (15) hectares six (6) hectares of which are devoted to its piggery business. REMMAN’s land is one and a half (1½) meters higher in elevation than that of respondent Lat.
Sometime in July 1984 Lat noticed that REMMAN’s waste disposal lagoon was already overflowing and inundating one-fourth (1/4) of Lat’s plantation. He made several representations with REMMAN but they fell on deaf ears. On 14 March 1985, after almost one (1) hectare of Lat’s plantation was already inundated with water containing pig manure, as a result of which the trees growing on the flooded portion started to wither and die, Lat filed a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory injunction against REMMAN. Lat alleged that the acidity of the soil in his plantation increased because of the overflow of the water heavy with pig manure from REMMAN’s piggery farm.
REMMAN denied all the allegations of Lat and raised as an affirmative defense that measures such as the construction of additional lagoons were already adopted to contain the waste water coming from its piggery to prevent any damage to the adjoining estates.
Issue:
Whether or not REMMAN should be liable for the damages suffered by Lat.
Held:
During the ocular inspection conducted by the lower court where representatives of both parties were present, it was established that the waste water containing pig manure was continuously flowing from REMMAN’s piggery farm to Lat’s plantation. The water was ankle-deep and flooded one (1) hectare of Lat’s plantation. The overflow of the “acidic, malodorous and polluted water” continued from June 1984 to March 1985 thus destroying one (1) jackfruit tree, fifteen (15) coconut trees, one hundred an twenty-two (122) coffee trees, and an unspecified number of mango trees, bananas and vegetables. The negligence of REMMAN in maintaining the level of waste water in its lagoons has been satisfactorily established. The extent of damages suffered by Lat remains unrebutted; in fact, has been proved.
Related posts:
- Case Digest | Jagualing v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Vda. De Nazareno v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Reynante v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Baes v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Morandarte v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Titong v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals
