de jesus et al vs howmart et al 12 ca rep 831

DE JESUS ET AL VS HOWMART ET AL 12 CA REP 831 FACTS: Jesus and Luz Miranda de Jesus are owners of the building located in Tondo,Manila. They brought an action for damages against Homart Corporation and Howmill Manufacturing Corporation, owners of the land adjoining the plaintiff on the same street where a sixty storey concrete building was constructed. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to observe the necessary care and precautions to protect the construction of the plaintiffs by depriving it of sufficient lateral or subjacent support,thereby causing it to sink in some parts; its walls, ceilings, and floorings to crack in some places; and by the careless manner of handling the cement used the roofing’s of the building of the plaintiff were damaged with the accumulated debris piled thereon. ISSUE: Whether or not proper precautions had been taken by the defendants in constructing the building in question so as to prevent causing damage to the building of the plaintiff. HELD: No. Article 684 of the New Civil Code provides “No property shall make such excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building sufficient lateral or subjacent support”. A reading of Article 684 shows that the duty of an adjacent owner not to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support is an absolute one. It does not depend on the degree of care and precaution made by the proprietor in making the excavation or building on his land. Plaintiffs’ house which adjoins the seven storey

Upload: charles-bunio-beluan

Post on 18-Jan-2016

176 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

cases

TRANSCRIPT

DE JESUS ET AL VS HOWMART ET AL 12 CA REP 831

FACTS:

Jesus and Luz Miranda de Jesus are owners of the building located in Tondo,Manila. They brought an action for damages against Homart Corporation and Howmill Manufacturing Corporation, owners of the land adjoining the plaintiff on the same street where a sixty storey concrete building was constructed. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to observe the necessary care and precautions to protect the construction of the plaintiffs by depriving it of sufficient lateral or subjacent support,thereby causing it to sink in some parts; its walls, ceilings, and floorings to crack in some places; and by the careless manner of handling the cement used the roofing’s of the building of the plaintiff were damaged with the accumulated debris piled thereon.

ISSUE:

Whether or not proper precautions had been taken by the defendants in constructing the building in question so as to prevent causing damage to the building of the plaintiff.

HELD:

No. Article 684 of the New Civil Code provides “No property shall make such excavations upon his land as to deprive any adjacent land or building sufficient lateral or subjacent support”. A reading of Article 684 shows that the duty of an adjacent owner not to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support is an absolute one. It does not depend on the degree of care and precaution made by the proprietor in making the excavation or building on his land. Plaintiffs’ house which adjoins the seven storey concrete building constructed by the defendants had sunk by about eight inches. The sinking of the left side of the house of the plaintiffs was due to the weakening of subjacent support and to the weight of the seven storey concrete building constructed by the defendant, as the excavation made necessarily disturbed the subjacent soil of the plaintiff’s land. Defendants having failed to provide the plaintiff’s land and house with sufficient lateral and subjacent support are liable for damages.

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,792,177 B2 ...Gale et al. Asakura Neukermans et al. Laor Pan et al. Laughlin Hornbeck Gove et al. Neukermans et al. Neukermans et al

The human genome Lander et al. 2001 Venter et al. 2001 Patil et al. 2001 Gabriel et al. 2002 Reich et al. 2001 Sabeti et al. 2002 Yu et al. 2002

(12) United States Patent (io) · Sevcik et al. Ryanetal..... 144/154.5 Govindaraj et al. Kennedy et al. Malone Woods et al. Takahashi et al. Dick et al. Ceroll et al. Caron et al

Integrative analysis of multi-platform RPPA data · 2011, Hayashi et al. 2014, Bernhardt et al. 2017, Hutter et al. 2017, Lièvre et al. 2017, Aslan et al. 2018, Faham et al. 2018,

Perry et al v. Judd et al

AMT 13-2413-2020 - Copernicus.org · 2020. 7. 15. · et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2016; Popoola et al., 2018; Yuval et al., 2019). Distributed

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7895.275 B1 ... Gutta et al. Signes et al. Hashimoto et al. Ghashghai et al. Ting et al. Vaidyanathan et al. Obradovich Larsson et al

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,120,245 B1 ...Polikarpus et al. Pham et al. Bawendi et al. Bagger et al. Masuzawa et al. Conley et al. Mardilovich Higuchi et al. Kobayashi

Actin-based propulsive forces and myosin-II-based ... · Tsujioka et al. (Tsujioka et al., 2004), Ladam et al. (Ladam et al., 2005) and del Alamo et al. (del Alamo et al., 2007)

Mutanwad et al., 2019 · signaling (Swain et al. 2001; Tseng et al. 2001; Silverstone et al. 2007; Zentella et al. 2016; Zentella et al. 2017). One of the most prominent features

(12) United States Patent Zhang et al. (45) Date of Patent ... · Lei et al. Murao Fodor et al. Okamura et al. Nguyen et al. Koinuma et al. Zhao et al. Knowles et al. Dobuzinsky et

Garber et al v. MLB et al