2.) BULAO vs.

CA

Respondent Belleza owns parcels of land that gives a yearly crop of 75 cavans
of rice for each cropping season. Beside such lands has an irrigation ditch that
supplies water for the area. Plaintiff installed a Dam that would divert the flow
of the water in the ditch that resulted to the destruction of the rice plants of the
Respondent because water was no longer going through the ditch beside the
land of the respondent because of the dam maliciously constructed by the
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff avers that the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the case and that
the National Water Resources Council had jurisdiction over the case
because it involved rights on the utilization of water.

The Supreme Court decided that MCTC has jurisdiction because the case
is an action for damages. Even though respondent’s prayer is for the
removal of the dam, this did not yield to the fact that the action was for
the damages because in the Ultimate facts provided in Respondent’s
initial complaint, all the elements of a quasi-delict is present. The acts of
the plaintiff caused the interruption of water passing through petitioner's
land towards respondent's lands, resulting in the destruction of the
respondent's rice plants. The averments of the complaint plainly make
out a case of quasi-delict that may be the basis of an action for damages.