Spouses Batal vs. Spouses San Pedro and Tominaga

A person who contracts to perform a survey or resurvey and to place boundary monuments is liable for culpa contractual under Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code when the work is performed without the required diligence—such as when a non-geodetic engineer installs monuments without the supervision of the licensed geodetic engineer—and the client, relying on those monuments, constructs a fence that encroaches on an adjoining right-of-way.

Respondents Spouses Luz San Pedro and Kenichiro Tominaga owned Lot 1509-C-3, a 700-square-meter parcel in Barangay Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. Petitioners Spouses Erlinda Batal and Frank Batal were engaged to provide surveying services; Erlinda was a licensed geodetic engineer, while Frank represented himself as a surveyor. The dispute implicates the Civil Code provisions on culpa contractual, which govern negligence in the performance of an existing obligation and the resulting liability for damages.

Respondents Spouses Luz San Pedro and Kenichiro Tominaga owned Lot 1509-C-3, a 700-square-meter parcel situated in Barangay Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan, which they acquired from Guillermo Narciso by virtue of a "Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa" dated March 18, 1992. They contracted the services of Frank Batal, who represented himself as a surveyor, to conduct a survey of their lot for P6,500.00. Because they wanted to enclose their property, they again procured Frank's services for an additional fee of P1,500.00 to determine the exact boundaries of the lot as basis for constructing their perimeter fence.

Frank placed concrete monuments marked P.S. on all corners of the lot, and respondents used these monuments as guides in erecting a concrete fence measuring about eight feet in height, which cost them P250,000.00 to build. Sometime in 1996, a complaint was lodged against respondents before the barangay on the ground that the northern portion of their fence allegedly encroached upon a designated right-of-way known as Lot 1509-D. Upon verification with another surveyor, respondents found that their wall indeed overlapped the adjoining lot. They also discovered that it was not Frank but his wife Erlinda Batal, a licensed geodetic engineer, who was qualified to do the work.

During confrontations before the barangay, Frank admitted that he made a mistake and offered to share in the expenses for the demolition and reconstruction of the questioned portion of respondents' fence, but he failed to deliver on his word, leading to the filing of the suit. In their defense, petitioners submitted that Frank never represented himself to be a licensed geodetic engineer; that Erlinda supervised her husband's work; that respondents' house and lot were already fenced even before petitioners were contracted to do a resurvey and lay out the concrete monuments; and that the complaint was instituted to harass them.

The RTC found that the perimeter fence encroached on the right-of-way; that the preponderance of evidence supported the finding that the encroachment was caused by petitioners' negligence; that respondents constructed the fence based on the concrete monuments installed by Frank after he assured them they could proceed; that the negligence in the installation of the monuments was due to the fact that Erlinda, the one truly qualified, did not provide the needed supervision; and that petitioners' testimonies were not credible. The CA concurred, adding that petitioners could not claim the error was due to respondents' unilateral act because petitioners had given their word that the arrangement of the monuments accurately reflected the boundaries, and that the northern portion of the fence had to be demolished and rebuilt. On damages, Engr. Arnold Martin testified that the total cost for demolition and reconstruction would be P428,163.90; respondent Luz San Pedro stated that the iron decorative grills, which were reusable, cost P50,000.00; and the RTC found that P300,000.00 was reasonable considering that the original construction cost was only about P200,000.00 and the iron grills were reusable.

• No Error in Resurvey / Proximate Cause: Petitioners insisted that there had been no error in their resurvey; that the error occurred in respondents' fencing; and that the proximate cause of the damage was respondents' own negligence because the fencing was done unilaterally and solely by them without the prior approval and supervision of petitioners.
• Misapprehension of Facts: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in ruling for respondents by premising its Decision on a misapprehension of facts amounting to grave abuse of discretion, and they asked the Court to review findings of fact.
• Improper Reliance on Jurisprudence: Petitioners assigned as error the CA's reliance on jurisprudence holding that a party having performed affirmative acts upon which another based his subsequent actions cannot thereafter refute his acts, and that findings of fact made by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect.

• Negligence and Contractual Liability: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that petitioners failed to exercise due care and diligence in the resurvey and placement of monuments, making them liable for damages.
• Proximate Cause: Whether the proximate cause of the damage was respondents' own negligence in constructing the fence unilaterally and without petitioners' approval and supervision.
• Estoppel / Affirmative Acts: Whether the CA erred in applying the rule that a party who performed affirmative acts upon which another relied cannot refute those acts.
• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the CA misapprehended the facts amounting to grave abuse of discretion, and whether the factual findings of the lower courts may be reviewed in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Damages: Whether the CA erred in affirming the award of actual damages, attorney's fees, and costs, and in denying moral and exemplary damages.

• Negligence and Contractual Liability: No. Petitioners failed to exercise the requisite diligence in the performance of their contractual obligations; the placement of monuments was done by Frank, who was not a geodetic engineer, without adequate supervision by Erlinda, the licensed geodetic engineer.
• Proximate Cause: No. The damage was caused by petitioners' negligence; respondents relied on Frank's assurance that they could proceed using the monuments, and petitioners cannot shift blame to respondents' construction.
• Estoppel / Affirmative Acts: No error. Petitioners led respondents to believe the resurvey and monuments accurately reflected the boundaries; having performed affirmative acts upon which respondents relied, they cannot refute those acts to respondents' prejudice.
• Review of Factual Findings: No. The factual findings of the RTC and CA are entitled to great weight and respect, are conclusive when they coincide, and will not be disturbed absent exceptional circumstances, none of which was shown.
• Damages: No. The CA correctly affirmed the RTC's award of P6,500.00 refund, P300,000.00 actual damages, P50,000.00 attorney's fees, and costs; moral and exemplary damages were properly denied absent malice or bad faith.

• Negligence and Contractual Liability: The Court distinguished culpa aquiliana, governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code, from culpa contractual, governed by Articles 1170 to 1174. This case involves culpa contractual because petitioners had an existing contractual obligation to survey or resurvey the lot and to place boundary monuments. Article 1170 makes those who are guilty of negligence in the performance of their obligations liable for damages, while Article 1173 requires the diligence required by the nature of the obligation and, if the law or contract does not state it, the diligence of a good father of a family. Petitioners failed this standard: Frank, who was not a geodetic engineer, installed the concrete monuments without adequate supervision by Erlinda, the licensed geodetic engineer. The placement of the monuments did not accurately reflect the dimensions of the lot. Respondents, relying on Frank's assurance that they could proceed with the fence based on the monuments, erected a fence that encroached on an adjacent easement. Because of the encroachment, respondents had to demolish and reconstruct the fence and suffered damages.
• Proximate Cause: The Court rejected petitioners' claim that respondents' unilateral fencing was the proximate cause of the damage. The services of petitioners were initially contracted to segregate respondents' property from adjoining lots, and when respondents planned to fence the segregated lot, they again commissioned petitioners to conduct a resurvey to determine the precise boundaries. In the course of the resurvey, Frank caused the installation of monuments on the four corners of the property and instructed respondents to follow them in building the fence. Petitioners led respondents to believe the purported accuracy of the resurvey and exactness of the boundaries based on the monuments. The encroachment and the need to demolish and reconstruct the fence flowed from petitioners' negligence, not from respondents' act of building the fence.
• Estoppel / Affirmative Acts: The Court adopted the CA's ruling and cited Pureza vs. Court of Appeals: a party, having performed affirmative acts upon which another person based his subsequent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same to the prejudice of the latter. Petitioners' assurances and installation of monuments induced respondents to construct the fence. Petitioners could not validly claim that the error in the construction of the northern portion was due to respondents' act of building without their consent, because petitioners themselves led respondents to rely on the monuments.
• Review of Factual Findings: The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal save in exceptional circumstances, none of which obtained. The findings of fact of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when they coincide with the factual findings of the trial court, as in this case. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. Petitioners failed to demonstrate this; the finding that the damage was due to petitioners' negligence was sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
• Damages: The Court affirmed the award of damages. Under Article 2201 of the Civil Code, in contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which an obligor who acted in good faith is liable are those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties foresaw or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. The RTC's award of P300,000.00 as actual damages was reasonable despite Engr. Arnold Martin's estimate of P428,163.90, because the iron decorative grills worth P50,000.00 were reusable and some figures in the estimate appeared excessive; the original construction cost was only about P200,000.00. Attorney's fees were proper because respondents were compelled to resort to court action to protect their rights, as Frank failed and refused repeatedly to attend barangay conciliation meetings and to honor his promise to help shoulder the cost of reconstruction. No moral or exemplary damages were awarded because there was no showing that petitioners acted with malice or in bad faith. The refund of P6,500.00 as professional fees was also affirmed.

• Culpa Contractual — Negligence in the performance of an existing obligation, governed by Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code, which increases the liability arising from the obligation itself. The Court applied this doctrine because petitioners had a contractual obligation to survey or resurvey the lot and place boundary monuments; their failure to exercise the required diligence constituted a breach for which they were liable for damages.
• Culpa Aquiliana vs. Culpa Contractual — Culpa aquiliana is a wrongful or negligent act or omission that creates a vinculum juris between persons not formally bound by any other obligation and is governed by Article 2176 and related articles; culpa contractual is fault or negligence in the performance of an obligation that already existed and is governed by Articles 1170 to 1174. The Court held that the case involved culpa contractual because the parties had an existing contract for surveying services.
• Diligence of a Good Father of a Family — Under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, if the law or contract does not state the diligence to be observed in performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family is required. The Court found that petitioners failed to observe the diligence required by the nature of their obligation because Frank, not a geodetic engineer, installed the monuments without adequate supervision by Erlinda, the licensed geodetic engineer.
• Estoppel by Affirmative Acts / Party Cannot Renege — A party who has performed affirmative acts upon which another person based his subsequent actions cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on their effects to the prejudice of the latter. The Court applied this doctrine because petitioners led respondents to believe the resurvey and monuments accurately reflected the boundaries, and respondents built the fence in reliance on that assurance.
• Factual Findings Conclusive — Factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal save in exceptional circumstances; when the findings of the CA coincide with those of the trial court, they are conclusive on the parties. The Court applied this doctrine in refusing to reweigh the evidence, absent a showing that the lower courts' findings were totally devoid of support or clearly erroneous.
• Actual Damages in Breach of Contract — Under Article 2201 of the Civil Code, an obligor who acted in good faith is liable for damages that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach and that the parties foresaw or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the award of P300,000.00 actual damages, while denying moral and exemplary damages absent malice or bad faith.

• "Culpa, or negligence, may be understood in two different senses: either as culpa aquiliana, which is the wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation, or as culpa contractual, which is the fault or negligence incident in the performance of an obligation which already existed, and which increases the liability from such already existing obligation." — This passage states the Court's canonical distinction between culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual, which was the threshold characterization that placed the case under Articles 1170 to 1174 of the Civil Code.
• "In the present case, it is clear that the petitioners, in carrying out their contractual obligations, failed to exercise the requisite diligence in the placement of the markings for the concrete perimeter fence that was later constructed." — This is the ratio decidendi on liability: petitioners breached their contractual duty of diligence, which directly caused respondents' damages.
• "[A] party, having performed affirmative acts upon which another person based his subsequent actions, cannot thereafter refute his acts or renege on the effects of the same, to the prejudice of the latter." — This passage, quoted from Pureza vs. Court of Appeals, supplies the estoppel principle that barred petitioners from shifting blame to respondents for building the fence in reliance on the monuments.
• "Well-established is the rule that factual findings of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal save in exceptional circumstances, none of which obtains in the present case." — This passage states the standard of review that justified the Court's refusal to re-examine the factual findings on negligence and proximate cause.

• Pureza vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 110 — Cited by the CA and adopted by the Supreme Court for the rule that a party who performed affirmative acts upon which another relied cannot refute those acts or renege on their effects to the latter's prejudice.
• Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 686 — Cited for the rule that findings of fact made by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect.
• Food Terminal, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 330 Phil. 903, 906 (1996) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the CA and RTC are not ordinarily reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, 397 Phil. 707, 724-725 (2000) — Cited for the rule that the Court will not weigh the evidence anew unless the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or clearly erroneous.
• Liberty Construction & Development Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 490, 495 (1996) and Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 823, 835 (1996) — Cited for the rule that factual findings are entitled to great weight and are conclusive when they coincide.
• Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359 (1907) — Cited in Tolentino's commentary for the distinction between culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual.
• Savellano vs. Northwest Airlines, 453 Phil. 342, 355 (2003) — Cited for liability for damages under Articles 1170 and 2201 of the Civil Code.
• R & B Surety Insurance Co. vs. Intermediate Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 736 and Guita vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 576 — Cited for the rule that moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, fraud, or bad faith.

• Article 1170, Civil Code — Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, or who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. The Court applied this provision because petitioners breached their contractual obligation through negligence in the resurvey and placement of monuments.
• Article 1173, Civil Code — Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding with the circumstances of the persons, time, and place; if the law or contract does not state the diligence to be observed, that of a good father of a family is required. The Court applied this provision in finding that petitioners failed to exercise the required diligence, particularly because Frank installed the monuments without adequate supervision by Erlinda, the licensed geodetic engineer.
• Article 2201, Civil Code — In contracts and quasi-contracts, damages for which an obligor who acted in good faith is liable are those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach and which the parties foresaw or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. The Court applied this provision in affirming the award of P300,000.00 actual damages.
• Article 2176, Civil Code — Governs culpa aquiliana. The Court cited this provision only to distinguish it from culpa contractual; it did not apply Article 2176 because the case involved an existing contractual obligation.
• Articles 1170 to 1174, Civil Code — Govern culpa contractual. The Court identified these provisions as the applicable regime for negligence in the performance of an existing obligation.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari. The Court applied this rule in declining to review the factual findings of the lower courts absent exceptional circumstances.

Panganiban, C.J., Chairperson; Ynares-Santiago; Callejo, Sr.; and Chico-Nazario, JJ.