Calimlim vs. Goño

Structures illegally built on public foreshore land without a DENR lease agreement, which obstruct public use and pose immediate safety hazards (e.g., fire risk, unsanitary conditions), constitute a public nuisance and a nuisance per se that may be abated through court action.

The case involves a dispute between neighboring beach resort operators in Matabungkay, Batangas. The Goños (owners of Villa Alexandra) sought the demolition of the Calimlims' structures, which were built on public foreshore land without title or lease, lacked necessary permits, and operated in a manner that allegedly caused noise, odor, safety hazards, and loss of income to the Goños' business.

• Filed in RTC (Branch 14, Nasugbu, Batangas)
• RTC dismissed the complaint (Judgment dated November 16, 2020)
• Appealed to CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 116735)
• CA reversed the RTC, ordered demolition and damages (Decision dated September 13, 2023)
• CA denied reconsideration (Resolution dated February 1, 2024)
• Elevated to SC via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

• Spouses Goño own and operate Villa Alexandra Beach Resort.
• Spouses Calimlim operated informal rest houses, sari-sari stores, carinderias, videoke, and billiards on adjacent foreshore land.
• The Calimlims' structures were built on public foreshore land; their application for a foreshore lease was denied by the DENR.
• They lacked building, business, sanitary, and mayor's permits.
• Operations produced excessive noise, offensive odor, and unsanitary conditions (e.g., toilet water seeping into Villa Alexandra's dining area).
• An open-fire kitchen caused a fire incident, which was extinguished by the Goños.
• The Goños suffered reduced income and guest complaints.
• The Goños demanded removal, complained to barangay, DENR, Department of Tourism, and the Office of the President, but to no avail.

• The Goños violated the Judicial Affidavit Rule; their documentary exhibits should not have been admitted.
• The nuisance alleged is private, not public, as the Goños did not file the complaint on behalf of a community.
• Occupation of public land does not automatically make the nuisance public.
• The RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to prove a nuisance.

• No violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule; exhibits were properly identified and authenticated.
• The Calimlims illegally occupied public foreshore land and operated without permits.
• The structures and operations constitute a public nuisance, causing special injury to their business.
• Exhausted administrative and local remedies before filing suit.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Goños violated the Judicial Affidavit Rule, rendering their exhibits inadmissible.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the Calimlims' structures and operations constitute a public nuisance.
  2. Whether the Goños are entitled to abatement and damages.

• Procedural: The SC found no violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The witness identified the exhibits in her judicial affidavit and affirmed them in open court. Any objection was deemed waived for failure to timely raise it during trial.
• Substantive:
  1. Yes, the structures are a public nuisance and a nuisance per se. The Calimlims illegally occupied public foreshore land without a lease agreement (as required by Commonwealth Act No. 141, Sec. 61). The operations posed immediate safety hazards (fire risk, unsanitary conditions), constituting a direct menace to public safety. This is a public nuisance as it interferes with public rights over public property and causes common injury.
  2. Yes, the Goños are entitled to abatement and damages. Having exhausted other remedies, they may pursue a civil action for abatement. Temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees, are warranted due to the prolonged nuisance and bad faith.

• Nuisance Per Se vs. Nuisance Per Accidens — A nuisance per se is a direct menace to public health or safety that may be summarily abated under the law of necessity. A nuisance per accidens depends on circumstances and requires judicial hearing before abatement. Here, the SC found the structures to be a nuisance per se due to the immediate safety threat (fire, unsanitary conditions) and illegal occupation of public land.
• Public Nuisance — Defined under Art. 695 of the Civil Code as one that affects a community or any considerable number of persons, or interferes with the exercise of a public right by encroaching on public property. The SC held that illegal occupation of public foreshore land and hazardous operations affecting neighboring establishments and the public constitute a public nuisance.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — The SC noted the Goños exhausted remedies by seeking help from the DENR, local government, Department of Tourism, and the Office of the President before filing suit, which is a prerequisite for a civil action based on public nuisance.

• "Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances." (Citing Sitchon v. Aquino)
• "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." (Citing Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills)

• Sitchon v. Aquino — Cited to establish that structures built without authority on public waterways are nuisances per se and public nuisances.
• Municipality of Biñan, Laguna v. Holiday Hills Stock & Breeding Farm Corp. — Cited for the definition and test of a nuisance per se, emphasizing immediate menace to public safety.
• AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp. — Cited for the definition of public and private nuisance.
• Cruz v. Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc. — Cited for the classification of nuisances (per se vs. per accidens) and remedies.

• Civil Code, Art. 694 — General definition of nuisance.
• Civil Code, Art. 695 — Definition of public nuisance.
• Civil Code, Art. 703 — Remedies against public nuisance.
• Civil Code, Arts. 2217, 2224, 2229, 2208 — Bases for awarding moral, temperate, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), Sec. 61 — Foreshore lands may only be disposed of by lease; unauthorized occupation is illegal.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24 — Defines foreshore land and foreshore lease agreements.