G.R. Nos. 114841-42 August 23, 1995 October 20, 1995
ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CARLITO D. CASTILLO, HEIRS OF CRISTETA CASTILLO and CORNELIO CASTILLO,
respondents.
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner company commenced the construction of a steel fabrication plant in the Municipality
of Bauan, Batangas, necessitating dredging operations at the Batangas Bay in an area adjacent to the real
property of private respondents.
As an offshoot of said dredging operations, an action for damages against herein petitioner Atlantic Gulf
and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. was filed by Carlito D. Castillo and another action by Cristeta Castillo
for herself and as guardian of Cornelio Castillo. On August 19, 1985, the above-mentioned cases were
consolidated, as the plaintiffs therein intended to present common evidence against defendant, 2 by
reason of the virtual identity of the issues involved in both cases.
Private respondents alleged that during the on-going construction of its steel and fabrication yard,
petitioner's personnel and heavy equipment trespassed into the adjacent parcels of land belonging to
private respondents without their consent. These heavy equipment damaged big portions of private
respondents' property which were further used by petitioner as a depot or parking lots without paying
any rent therefor, nor does it appear from the records that such use of their land was with the former's
conformity.
Private respondents further alleged that as a result of the dredging operation of petitioner company, the
sea silt and water overflowed and were deposited upon their land. Consequently, the said property which
used to be agricultural lands principally devoted to rice production and each averaging an annual net
harvest of 75 cavans, could no longer be planted with palay as the soil became infertile, salty,
unproductive and unsuitable for agriculture.3
Petitioner company denied all the allegations of private respondents and contended that its personnel
and equipment had neither intruded upon nor occupied any portion of private respondents' landholdings.
The alleged sea silt with water, according to petitioner was due to the flood brought by the heavy rains
when typhoon "Ruping" hit and lashed the province of Batangas in 1982.
ISSUE/HELD: Whether Article 2177 of the Civil Code which states that "the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant" is violated when it condemned the
petitioner as a result of its dredging operations, to pay private respondents not only the expected total
amount of profits the latter would have derived from the expected sale of their palay harvest from the
half hectare agricultural land, but also rentals/NO
RATIO: It is theorized by petitioner that our affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, which granted
damages for both the "damage proper to the land" and "rentals for the same property," runs afoul of the
proscription in Article 2177 of the Civil Code against double recovery of damages for the same act.
Petitioner overlooks the fact that private respondents, as plaintiffs in the actions filed in the court
below, specifically alleged that as a result of petitioner's dredging operations the soil of the former's
property "became infertile, salty, unproductive and unsuitable for agriculture." They further averred that
petitioner's heavy equipment "used to utilize (private respondents') land as a depot or parking lot of these
equipment(t) without paying any rent therefor."
Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court on
the nature and cause of the twin items of damages sustained by private respondents.
It is, therefore, clearly apparent that petitioner was guilty of two culpable transgressions on the
property rights of private respondents, that is, for the ruination of the agricultural fertility or utility of the
soil of their property and, further, for the unauthorized use of said property as a dump rile or depot or
petitioner's heavy equipment and trucks. Consequently, albeit with differing amounts, both courts
correctly awarded damages both for the destruction of the land and for the unpaid rentals, or more
correctly denominated, for the reasonable value of its use and occupation of the premises.