Calimlim vs. Goño

Structures illegally built and operated on public foreshore land without a lease agreement or necessary permits, which create immediate safety hazards and cause special injury to a neighboring property, constitute a public nuisance and a nuisance per se that may be abated via civil action.

The dispute arose in Matabungkay Beach, Batangas, a declared tourist zone. Spouses Goño's established resort (Villa Alexandra) suffered from the operations of Spouses Calimlim's adjacent informal structures, which were built on public foreshore land without legal authority.

• Filed in RTC (Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas).
• RTC dismissed the complaint for abatement of nuisance.
• Spouses Goño appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 116735).
• CA reversed the RTC, ordering demolition and awarding damages.
• Spouses Calimlim elevated the case to the SC via a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45).
• SC dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA decision.

• Spouses Goño own and operate Villa Alexandra Beach Resort.
• Spouses Calimlim operated informal rest houses, sari-sari stores, a carinderia, videoke, and billiard tables on adjacent land.
• The land occupied by Spouses Calimlim is public foreshore land (alternately covered/uncovered by tide).
• Spouses Calimlim's application for a foreshore lease with the DENR was denied. They had no building, business, or sanitary permits.
• Their operations caused: offensive odors from improperly disposed human waste, seepage of unclean water into Villa Alexandra's dining area, and fire hazards from open-fire kitchens (one fire incident was quelled by Spouses Goño).
• Villa Alexandra guests complained, and some left, causing Spouses Goño loss of income.
• Spouses Goño demanded removal, complained to barangay, DENR, and national offices, but to no avail, leading to the civil suit.

• The complaint was for a private nuisance, not a public one, as it was filed by a single establishment, not the community.
• Spouses Goño violated the Judicial Affidavit Rule, making their documentary exhibits inadmissible.
• Their long-term occupation (50+ years) and the presence of similar structures negated the nuisance claim.
• Loss of income was due to normal competition, not their actions.

• The nuisance was public as it was on public land and affected the community's right to a safe, clean shore.
• They suffered special injury (loss of business, discomfort to guests) distinct from the public.
• Spouses Calimlim's operations were illegal (no lease, no permits) and hazardous (fire, sanitation).
• Evidence was properly authenticated and admitted.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the exhibits identified in the judicial affidavit were inadmissible for violating the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the subject of the complaint is a public nuisance or a private nuisance.
  2. Whether Spouses Goño, as private individuals, have a cause of action to abate a public nuisance.
  3. Whether the award of damages was proper.

• Procedural: The SC found no violation of the Judicial Affiduit Rule. The witness identified the exhibits in her affidavit and affirmed them in court. More importantly, Spouses Calimlim waived any objection by failing to timely raise it during trial.
• Substantive:
  1. The nuisance is public. It is on public foreshore land occupied without authority, interfering with the public's right to the area. It also poses an immediate threat to safety (fire, structural integrity), making it a nuisance per se.
  2. Spouses Goño have a cause of action. They suffered special injury (direct, substantial harm to their business and property) distinct from the general public, and they had exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit (Art. 703, Civil Code).
  3. The damages award was proper. Temperate damages were given for pecuniary loss without exact proof. Moral damages were for wounded feelings and anxiety. Exemplary damages and attorney's fees were warranted to correct the public wrong and because they were compelled to litigate.

• Classification of Nuisance — A public nuisance affects a community or any considerable number of persons, or interferes with a public right by encroaching on public property. A private nuisance violates only private rights, affecting one or a few persons.
• Nuisance Per Se vs. Nuisance Per Accidens — A nuisance per se is a direct menace to public health/safety that may be summarily abated under the law of necessity (e.g., structures on public streets/waterways). A nuisance per accidens depends on circumstances and requires judicial hearing before abatement. The SC here classified the illegal, hazardous structures on public land as a nuisance per se.
• Right to Abate a Public Nuisance — A private person may bring a civil action to abate a public nuisance if they have suffered "special injury" — damage that is particular, substantial, and different in kind from that suffered by the general public.

• "A nuisance has also been considered public 'when it interferes with the exercise of public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common injury.'"
• "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."
• "Spouses Calimlim's obstruction of and unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore land equate to a public nuisance."

• Sitchon v. Aquino — Cited for the rule that houses built without authority on public streets/waterways are nuisances per se and public nuisances.
• Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills — Applied to distinguish a nuisance per se (direct menace justifying summary abatement) from a nuisance per accidens.
• AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp. — Cited for the definitions of public and private nuisance.

• Civil Code, Art. 694 — General definition of nuisance.
• Civil Code, Art. 695 — Definition of public nuisance.
• Civil Code, Art. 703 — A private person may bring a civil action for public nuisance if it is specially injurious to them.
• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), Sec. 61 — Foreshore lands may only be disposed of by lease, not sale or other means.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24 — Defines foreshore land and governs Foreshore Lease Agreements.

• N/A (The decision was unanimous).

• N/A (The decision was unanimous).