Magbanua vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court Facts: The plaintiffs filed a petition against the respondents allsurenamed Perez alleging that they are shared tenants of the defendants, and that the latter divert the flow of water from their farm lots which caused the drying up of their landholdings and asked to vacate their areas for they could not plant palay due to lack of water. The trial court rendered a decision in favor to the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to pay moral and exemplary damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the IAC which the latter affirmed the appeal by deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs. Upon the reinstatement of the IAC, the trial court did not agree to the appellate court in its decision because the former believe that as a shared tenants, they are entitled to be maintained as agricultural lessees in peaceful cultivation in their respective landholdings. Issue: WON the tenants of defendants were entitled to moral and exemplary damages. Held: Yes. Under the law, the landowners has an obligation to keep the tenant in the peaceful and continuous cultivation of his landholding. In this case, it shows that the petitioners were denied irrigation water for their farm lots in order to make them vacate their landholdings. The defendants violated the plaintiff's rights and caused prejudiced to the latter by the diversion of water. Under Article 2219 (10), the Civil Code permits the award of moral damages for acts mentioned in Article 21 of the same Code which provides, Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The defendants acted in an oppressive manner which is contrary to the morals of the petitioners and therefore, they are liable for the compensation to the latter.

Rodriguez vs. IAC Facts: Petitoners filed an action for abatement of a public nuisance with damages against respondent herein Daytona Construction & Development Corporation engaged in the manufacture of road and building concrete materials such as concrete aggregates, with cement batching plant. The petitioners averred that their health and property has been damaged by the cement dust, emanating from the respondents cement batching plant.

Issue: Whether or not the Daytona Construction & Development Corporation is a nuisance.

Held: Yes. The court ordered and declared the operation of the cement hatching plant of the corporation as a nuisance and ordering its permanent closure. The continued operation of the cement batching plant of the corporation poses a "great menace to the neighborhood, both in point of health and property. The petitioners are entitled for damages.