Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 822 views

    Sps Batal V Sps Tominaga

    Uploaded by

    Ba Shang
    The document summarizes a court case between two parties, the Batal and Tominaga spouses. The Tominaga spouses hired Frank Batal, who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their property and mark the boundaries. Based on Batal's markings, the Tominagas then built a fence. It was later discovered that the fence encroached on a right-of-way due to errors in Batal's survey. The Tominagas sued the Batal's for damages. The court ruled in favor of the Tominagas, finding that the Batal's failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the survey and placing the boundary markers, and are thus liable for damages caused by the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Batal V Sps Tominaga

    Uploaded by

    Ba Shang
    822 views3 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between two parties, the Batal and Tominaga spouses. The Tominaga spouses hired Frank Batal, who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their property and mark the boundaries. Based on Batal's markings, the Tominagas then built a fence. It was later discovered that the fence encroached on a right-of-way due to errors in Batal's survey. The Tominagas sued the Batal's for damages. The court ruled in favor of the Tominagas, finding that the Batal's failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the survey and placing the boundary markers, and are thus liable for damages caused by the

    Original Description:

    torts

    Original Title

    sps-Batal-v-sps-Tominaga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case between two parties, the Batal and Tominaga spouses. The Tominaga spouses hired Frank Batal, who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their property and mark the boundaries. Based on Batal's markings, the Tominagas then built a fence. It was later discovered that the fence encroached on a right-of-way due to errors in Batal's survey. The Tominagas sued the Batal's for damages. The court ruled in favor of the Tominagas, finding that the Batal's failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the survey and placing the boundary markers, and are thus liable for damages caused by the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    822 views3 pages

    Sps Batal V Sps Tominaga

    Uploaded by

    Ba Shang
    The document summarizes a court case between two parties, the Batal and Tominaga spouses. The Tominaga spouses hired Frank Batal, who represented himself as a surveyor, to survey their property and mark the boundaries. Based on Batal's markings, the Tominagas then built a fence. It was later discovered that the fence encroached on a right-of-way due to errors in Batal's survey. The Tominagas sued the Batal's for damages. The court ruled in favor of the Tominagas, finding that the Batal's failed to exercise due diligence in conducting the survey and placing the boundary markers, and are thus liable for damages caused by the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    SPOUSES ERLINDA BATAL AND FRANK BATAL, petitioners,vs.

    SPOUSES LUZ SAN PEDRO AND KENICHIRO TOMINAGA, respondents.

    G.R. No. 164601            

    September 27, 2006

    FACTS:

    The spouses Luz San Pedro and Kenichiro Tominaga are the owners of a parcel of land, on which
    their house was erected, described as Lot 1509-C-3 with an area of 700 square meters situated
    in Barangay Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. Said property was acquired from Guillermo Narciso as
    evidenced by a "Bilihan ng Bahagi ng Lupa". The spouses Luz and Kenichiro then contracted the
    services of Frank Batal (Frank) who represented himself as a surveyor to conduct a survey of
    their lot. As Luz and Kenichiro wanted to enclose their property, they again procured the
    services of Frank in order to determine the exact boundaries of the same by which they will
    base the construction of their perimeter fence.

    Frank placed concrete monuments marked P.S. on all corners of the lot which were used as
    guides by Luz and Kenichiro in erecting a concrete fence measuring about eight (8) feet in
    height and cost them P250,000.00 to build. A complaint was filed against Luz and Kenichiro
    before the barangay on the ground that the northern portion of their fence encroached upon a
    designated right-of-way. Upon verification with another surveyor, Luz and Kenichiro found that
    their wall indeed overlapped the adjoining lot. They also discovered that it was not Frank but
    his wife Erlinda Batal (Erlinda), who is a licensed geodetic engineer.

    After a barangay confrontation, the spouses filed an action for damages for failure of the
    spouses Batal to exercise due care and diligence in the preparation of a survey which formed
    the basis for the construction of a perimeter fence that was later discovered to have
    encroached on a right of way. The spouses Batal refute the allegation of negligence for the
    spouses Tominaga contructed the fence without their consent. The RTC ruled against spouses
    Batal, on appeal the CA in addition ruled on the defense of the Spouses Batal that they cannot
    claim that the error of the construction of the fence was due to the unilateral act of spouses
    Tominaga in building the same without their consent, since the Frank gave an assurance that
    the arrangement of the monuments of title accurately reflected the boundaries of the lot.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the proximate cause of the damage was the spouses Tominaga’s own negligence
    because the fencing was done unilaterally and solely by them without the prior approval and
    supervision of the spouses Batal.

    RULING: No,
    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. Culpa aquiliana is governed by Article 2176 of the Civil Code and the immediately
    following Articles; while culpa contractual is governed by Articles 1170 to 1174 of the same
    Code.

    Articles 1170 and 1173 provide:

    ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
    negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are
    liable for damages.

    ART. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that
    diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
    circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad
    faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2202, paragraph 2, shall apply.

    If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the
    performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.

    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. The placement of the markings had been done
    solely by Frank Batal who is not a geodetic engineer. It was later discovered that it was not he
    but his wife, petitioner Erlinda Batal, who is the licensed geodetic engineer and who is the one
    qualified to do the work. Frank Batal's installation of the concrete cyclone monuments had
    been done without the adequate supervision of his wife, Erlinda. As a result, the placement of
    the monuments did not accurately reflect the dimensions of the lot. The spouses Tominaga,
    upon assurance given by Frank Batal that they could proceed with the construction of the
    perimeter fence by relying on the purported accuracy of the placement of the monuments,
    erected their fence which turned out to encroach on an adjacent easement. Because of the
    encroachment, the spouses Tominaga had to demolish and reconstruct the fence and, thus,
    suffered damages.

    Being guilty of a breach of their contract, petitioners are liable for damages suffered by the
    respondents in accordance with Articles 1170 and 2201 of the Civil Code, 16 which state:

    Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
    negligence, or delay and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof are
    liable for damages
    Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
    acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
    consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
    could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

    In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for
    all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
    obligation.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy