2. BULAO VS CA (G.R. NO.

101983 FEBRUARY 1, 1993)

Facts:

On April 25, 1983. respondent Santiago Belleza filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum,
Peñarrubia, Abra, a complaint against petitioner Honorio Bulao. It was docketed as "Civil Case No. 70-
Damages." The petitioner moved to dismiss the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He argued
that the said case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the real issue being one of ownership,
possession of the land where the ditches are located, and real rights involving the use of ditches.

The petitioner submits that the allegations in paragraphs 4 and 5 as well as the prayer in paragraph (a)
of the above-quoted pleading show that the Civil Case 70 involves water and water rights and is thus a
water dispute. The proper authority to try and decide the case is the National Water Resources Council
pursuant to Article 88 of Presidential Decree 1067.

Xxxxx

4. That the above described parcels of land give a yearly double crop yield in the amount of 75 cavans of
clean rice for each cropping season because of the presence of an irrigation system which has existed
for more than 50 years already;

5. That defendant's property is located on a higher elevation in the vicinity of the above parcels and
irrigation ditch which supplies water to the above parcels must pass by the land of the defendant before
it reaches the lands of plaintiff as above-described;

Xxxxx

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant
—

(a) To allow the water to flow unhampered to plaintiff's properties as described in paragraph 2 hereof;

Xxxxx

The petitioner invokes two cases which both holds that jurisdiction pertained to the National Water
Resources Council as the issues involved were the appropriation, utilization and control of water.

But these cases have no application to the instant controversy. It is clear from a reading of the private
respondent's complaint in Civil Case 70 that it is an action for damages predicated on a quasi-delict.

Issue:

Whether or not MTC had jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

Yes. The relief he prayed for, par. A, did not change Civil Case No. 70 into a water dispute coming under
the jurisdiction of the National Water Research Council. It follows that since the court a quo had
jurisdiction over the action instituted by the private respondent, its decision, which has already become
final and executory, can no longer be disturbed.
From the reading of the complaint, the present case is for an action for damages predicated on quasi-
delict. A quasi-delict has the following elements: a) the damage suffered by the plaintiff; b) the act or
omission of the defendant supposedly constituting fault or negligence; and c) the causal connection
between the act and the damage sustained by the plaintiff.

All these elements are set out in the private respondent's complaint, specifically in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8
thereof. The damage claimed to have been sustained by private respondents consists of his loss of
harvest and consequent loss of income. The act constituting the fault is the alleged malicious
construction of a dam and diversion of the flow of water by the petitioner. The said acts allegedly
caused the interruption of water passing through petitioner's land towards respondent's lands, resulting
in the destruction of the respondent's rice plants. The averments of the complaint plainly make out a
case of quasi-delict that may be the basis of an action for damages.

It is the injury that has been done, that is what the private respondent was suing about in his action for
damages