MEANING OF TORT AND TORTIOUS ACT
Personal Torts - include all injuries to the
1. Tort - wrongful act or omission resulting in a
breach of private duty and damage from said
breach of duty of such a character as to afford a
right of redress at law in favor of the inured party
against the wrongdoer.
ESSENCE OF TORT
1.Defendant's potential for civil liability - the
defendant's potential civil liability to the victim for
harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly the
victims potential for compensation or other relief.
2. Existence of physical harms, not essential
3. variations of torts
KINDS OF WRONG
1. civil - involves a violation of private legal right
criminal - regarded as an offense against the public
and is penalized by law as a crime or felony
2. intentional - defendant is consciously aware that
his conduct is wrongful, or negligent if the
defendant does not intend an invasion of plaintiff's
right but is aware that, by his behavior, he is taking
unreasonable risk
3. reckless, wrong, wanton wrong - species of
negligence which imports knowledge and
consciousness of the high risk of harm resulting
from his conduct as to be equivalent to an
intentional wrong.
FUNCTIONS OR GOALS OF TORT
1. morality or corrective justice
2. Social Utility or policy
3. Legal process
4. potential conflicts
5. Distribution of loss
6. redress of social grievances
7. summary - a mixed system
TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS
1.Property torts - embrace all injuries and damages
to property, whether realty or personalty
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
2.
person, whether to the body, reputations or
feelings. a tort which is not an injury to property is
a personal tort.
CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INJURY IN TORT LAW
- it embrace all actionable injuries to the individual
himself. it may denote an injury affecting the
reputation, character, conduct, manner and habits
of a person.
DEFINITION OF INJURY, DAMAGES AND DAMAGE
1. Injury - illegal invasion of a legal right
2. damage - loss, hurt, or harm which results from
the injury
3. damages - recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered.
TORT AND CONTRACT
1. contract duties are created by the promises of
the parties while tort duties are imposed as rules of
law
2. contracts are largely about economic matters
such as buying and selling many torts involve
physical harms
3. contract law is at least formally strict liability
law. most tort law on the other hand, is at least
formally fault based.
4. it is a character of torts that the duties from the
violation of which tort result are creatures of the
law and not of particular agreements. a contract is
not essential to the existence of tort
5. a breach of contract may be treated as a tort
where the law casts its separate obligation.
DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
1.Restitution; injunction - forces the tortfeasor to
disorge gains he wrongfully obtained by tort, and
injunction, which compels him to cease his tortous
conduct.
2.Compensation of harm suffered - the award is
usually a money award called damages and is
intended as a kind of compensation for the harm
suffered.
PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE FOR TORT
1. Particular individual injured
2. Persons upon whom tort committed
3. person injured by tort committed upon another
4. Several persons wronged by the same act
5. persons especially injured by contract violation
6. Person directly, not collaterally, injured
PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT
1. Tortfeasor
2. Person incapable of making a contract
3. Person other than tortfeasor
a. mere presence at the commission of a wrongful
act by another will not render him liable as a
participant. however, proof that a person is
present at the commission of a wrongful act
b. Mere knowledge - that a tort is being committed
against another will not be sufficient to establish
liability
c. mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort
after the act does not make a person liable
d. ratification must be founded on full knowledge
of the facts constituting wrong which has been
committed or with a purpose on the part of the
principal to take the consequences on himself
without inquiry.
e. no duty to control conduct of a third peron as to
prevent him from causing bodily harm to another
unless a special relationship exists between one
and the third person.
joint tortfeasor - two or more persons who act
together in committing a wrong or contribute to its
commission or assist or participate therein actively
and without common intent, so that injury results
to a third person from the joint wrongful act of the
wrongdoers.
ELEMENTS AND TYPES OF TORTS
ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. legal right in favor of a person (plaintiff)
2. correlative legal obligation on the part of
another to respect or not to violate such right
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
3. a wrong in the form of an act or omission in
violation of said legal right and duty with
consequent injury or damage to plainitff.
Legal right - well founded claim enforced by
sanctions
Legal duty - which the law requires to be done or
forborne to a determinate person or to the public.
Motive - impelling force or underlying or subjective
reason for doing an act, or the mental state or
force which induces an act of violation
Motive is material: lawful act constitutes an
actionable tort when unlawful means are
employed purposely to injure another.
Motive is immaterial: conduct which does not
either by itself or because of the manner of its
exercise, constitute an invasion of the right of
another is not tortuous , however bad or malicious
the actor's motives.
Purpose - denotes the object of an act or the
external or objectives result desired
Intent - an external act or an intelligent volition and
is thus distinguishable from the term "motive" their
use in statements of legal principles has not always
been mutually exclusive.
MATERIALITY OF INTENT
1.Intentional act is done in ignorance - voluntary
act, presenting the elements of duty, breach, and
damage is tortious although unaccompanied by a
deliberate design to injure or to commit an
unlawful act.
2. Resulting damage is different from that
contemplated - fortiori where defendant
voluntarily engages in conduct designed to cause
some damage, it is immaterial, on the question of
the existence of a tort that the damage actually
brought is different from that contemplated by him
3. Act complained of is not done unlawfully or
without care - although the ultimate motive is not
bad, if the intent is to accomplish that purpose be
deliberately inflicting injury, the goodness of the
motive will not render non- tortiuos acts which are
torts by reason of the badness of the intent.
PARTICULAR KINDS OF TORTIOUS ACTS
1. acts intended to inflict injury
General rule - a cause of action arises whenever
one person, by an act not in the exercise of a lawful
right, causes loss or does damage to another with
an intent, either actual or constructive, to produce
such harm, without just or lawful excuse or
justifiable cause or occasion.
2. acts not intended to inflict injury - a casue of
action may be predicated upon negligence, or the
failure to observe a standard of case prescribed by
law, without a conscious design to do wrong
3. malicious acts - defined not only as relating to
the intentional commission of a wrongful act, but
also as involving wickedness, depravity and evil
intent.
* there is no liability in tort for doing a lawful act
even though it is done for the malicious purpose of
injuring another party, where there are also
legitimate reasons for doing the act.
4. willful and wanton act
willful act - one done intentionally, or on purpose,
and not accidentally and willfulness implies
intentional wrongdoing
wanton act - wrongful act done on purpose or in
malicious disregard of the rights of others
5. willful or wanton negligence - imports
premeditation or knowledge and consciousness
that injury is likely to result from the act done or
from the omission of the act.
6. Acts arising out of a contractual relationship
PARTICULAR TYPES OF TORTS
1. General types
a. culpable and intentional acts resulting in harm
b. acts involving culpable and unlawful conduct
casing unintentional harm
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
c. non culpable acts or conduct resulting in
accidental harm which because of hazards
involved, the law imposes absolute liability
notwithstanding the abuse of fault.
2. Interference with property rights
3. Interference with right to services
4. Interference with contractual rights
5. Interference with personal rights
6. Rudeness, threats, abusive language
7. obstruction of, and compelling resort to, legal
remedies
8. Malicious prosecution of a criminal action
9. unauthorized suit in another's name
10. other particular torts;
a. Acts of public officers
b. injurious falsehood
c. interference with right or destruction of will
d. trade secrets, inventions or patents
Prima Facie Tort Doctrine
- the infliction of intentional harms resulting in
damage without excuse or justification by an act or
a series of acts which would otherwise be lawful.
Doctrine of absolute or strict liability
- the actor, realizing the hazard of his undertaking
nevertheless assumes the risk connected therewith
and, notwithstanding he is free from all wrong, and
has used utmost care, he nevertheless is liable for
any invasion of the person or property rights of
another.
QUASI - DELICTS
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter. (1902a)
*Fault - when a person acts in a manner contrary
to what should have done.
only juridical fault, but not moral fault gives rise to
liability for damages. lack of charity or altruism,
constituting moral fault, does not constitute quasi-
delict.
* The fault referred to Art. 2176 is a fault
substantive and independent which in itself is a
source of obligations and is also known as culpa
aquilana as distinguished from culpa contractual. If
the fault is committed intentionally to cause
damage to another, it becomes a dolo punished as
a crime by the RPC.
Negligence - failure to observe for the protection
of the interests of another person, that the degree
of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand whereby such
another person suffers injury.
Distinction between fault and negligence
A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault,
but there may be fault without negligence as here
the damage or injury resulting from the wrongful
act or omission as cause wilfully and not by reason
of lack of care.
No Duty to Act Rule
Unless the defendant has assumed a duty to act, or
stands in a special relationship to the plaintiff,
defendants are not liable in tort for a pure failure
to act for the plaintiffs benefit.
REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT
1. act or omission by the defendant
2. fault or negligence of the defendant
3. damage or injury caused to the plaintiff
4. there must be a direct relationship or connection
of cause and effect between the act or omission
and the damage
5. no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties
BURDEN OF PROOF
the burden of proof is generally on the person
claiming damages to establish by satisfactory
evidence that the legal cause of his damage or
injury was the fault or negligence of the defendant
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
or of one for whose acts he must respond and the
damages suffered by him
As a rule, negligence is not presumed. Mere
suspicion, surmise or speculation cannot be the
basis of an award for damages. where, however,
negligence is presumed by law, , the burden of
proving its non existence is shifted to the party to
whom the presumption applies.
CULPA AQUILANA VS. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
1.culpa aquilana- is the wrongful act or omission
which of itself is the source of the obligation
separate from, and independent of, contract
culpa contractual - act or omission considered as
an incedent in the performance of an obligation
already existing and which constitutes a breach
thereof
a. where liability arises from culpa aquilana, not a
breach of positive obligation, an employer or
master may excuse himself under the last
paragraph of Article 2180 by proving that he had
exercised " all diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage"
b. in culpa aquilana, the plainitff has the burden of
proving that the defendant was at fault or
negligent.
in culpa contractual, it is not necessary for the
plaintiff to plead or prove that the violation of the
contract was due to fault or negligence.
c. culpa aquilana- there is no preseumption that
the defendant was at fault or negligent
Culpa contractual - the mere proof of the existence
of the contract and its breach raises such
presumtion that the burden is on the defendant to
prove that he was not at fualt or negligent.
d. culpa aquilana - primarily governed by Article
2176
Culpa Contractual - governed by 1170 to 1174
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.(n)
CRIME VS. QUASI- DELICT
1. crime -there is criminal or malicious intent or
criminal negligence
quasi delict - there is only negligence
2. Crime - there are 2 liabilities: criminal and civil
QD - there is only civil liability
3. Crime - affects public interest
QD - concerns private interest or concern
4. crime - purpose is punishment or correction
QD - indemnification of the offended party
5. Criminal liability cannot be compromised
Liability for QD can be compromised as any other
civil liability
6. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt,
QD - the fault or negligence of the defendant need
only be proved by preponderance of evidence
7. Crime - the liability of the person responsible for
the author of the negligent act or omission is
subsidiary
QD - it is direct and primary
Recovery of damages twice for the same act or
omission is prohibited
* quasi - delict and an act or omission punishable
by law are two different sources of obligations.
The offended party has the option between an
action for enforcement of civil liability based on
culpa criminal under Art. 100 of RPC and an action
for recovery of damages based on culpa aquilana
under Art. 2177 of the NCC.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
These two cases of action may be availed of subject
to the caveat that the offended party cannot
recover twice for the same act or omission or
under both causes.
This proscription in our law stems from the
fundamental rule against unjust enrichment. Since
these two civil liabilities are distinct and
independent of each other, the failure to reciver in
one will not necessarily preclude recovery in the
other.
Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to
1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)
Statutory definition of Fault or negligence
Article 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
2201, 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. (1104a)
Negligence - conduct that creates undue risk or
harm to another. it is the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person , that
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury
Test for determining whether a person is
negligent
1.Reasonable care and caution expected of an
ordinary prudent person
2. No hard and fast rule from measuring degree of
care
3.Negligence, a legal question
Factors to be considered
1. nature of the obligation
2. circumstances of the person or thing
3. Circumstances of time
4. Circumstances of the place
Fortuitous Event

Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by
the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. (1105a)
Fortuitous Event - any event which cannot be
foreseen, or which though foreseen, is inevitable. it
is an event which is either impossible to foresee or
impossible to avoid.
Fortuitous Event vs. Force Majeure
Fortuitous Event - event independent of the will of
the obligor but not of other men (Acts of Men)
Force Majeure - those events which are totally
independent of the will of every human being (Acts
of God)
Requisites of Fortuitous Event
1. Event must be independent of the human will or
at least the obligor's will
2. the event could not be foreseen or if foreseen,
must have been impossible to avoid
3. Event must be of such a character as to render it
impossible for the obligor to comply with his
obligation in a normal manner
4. Obligor must be free from any participation in,
or the aggravation of the injury to the obligee
Doctrine of assumption of risk
Meaning - assumption of risk may be invoked as a
complete defense by the defendant in a quasi-
delictual action. it assumes that a plaintiff who
voluntarily assumes a risk of harm from the
negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover
from such harm.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
Requisites:
1. plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger
2. he understood and appreciated the risk form the
danger
3. he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence
was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded. (n)
Effect of negligence on the part of the injured
party
Negligence merely contributed to the injury - to
be entitled to the damages, the law does not
require that the negligence of the defendant
should be the sole cause of the damage.
There is a contributory negligence on the part of
the injured party where his conduct has
contributed, as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which fall below the standard to which he
is required to conform for his own protection.
Legal cause of damage, harm or injury
A person claiming damages for the fault or
negligence of another has the burden of
establishing at least 3 conditions:
1. fault or negligence of the defendant
2. Damage, harm or injury to the plaintiff
3. Connection of cause and effect between the
fault or negligence and the damage.
Proximate cause
- that cause which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.
Tests of Proximate cause
1. But for test - defendant's conduct is the cause of
the injury which would not have been sustained if
the defendant had not been negligent.
2. cause-in-fact test - a cause in fact relation must
exist between defendants conduct and plaintiff's
injury before liability may arise.
3. substantial factor test - if the actors conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about harm to
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor
should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the
manner in which it occurred, does not prevent him
from being liable
4. Foreseability test - if the defendant could not
reasonably foresee any injury as a result of his act,
or if his act is reasonable in the light of what he
could anticipate, there is no negligence and no
liability.
5. Natural and probable consequence test - it must
appear that the injury was not only the natural but
also the probable consequence of the conduct as
distinguished from consequences that are merely
possible. since shat is probable is, in a real sense,
foreseeable, foresee ability appears to be an
implicit element of this test of proximate cause.
6. Direct consequence test - the defendant is liable
for all the damage that flows as the ordinary and
natural or direct consequence of his conduct to be
determined from the circumstances of the case
rather than upon whether he might or must have
reasonably expected the resulting inury.
Doctrine of contributory negligence - negligence
on the part of the injured party which merely
contributes to, but is not the proximate cause of,
his inury, and resulting in the mitigation of the
defendant's liability and plaintiff's indemnity.
Doctrine of comparative negligence - a
comparison is made in terms of the degree of the
negligence of the plaintiff and that of the
defendant and the amount of damages recoverable
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
by plaintiff is reduced to the extent of his
negligence.
Doctrine of Last clear chance - the negligence of
the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of the defendant where it appears that
the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the
plaintiff's negligence.
Elements - The doctrine may be invoked by the
injured person, if the following facts are present.
1. the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by
his own negligence , became unable to escape from
such position by the use of ordinary care , either
because it became physically impossible for him to
do so or because he as totally unaware of the
danger.
2. the defendant knew that the plaintiff as in a
position of danger and further knew , or in the
exercise of ordinary care should have known , that
the plaintiff was unable to escape there from
3. that the defendant had the last clear chance to
avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care
but failed to exercise such last clear chance, and
the accident occurred as a proximate result of such
failure.
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
- the thing or transaction speaks for itself. it is a
maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence
of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or
negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie
case, and present a question of fact for defendant
to meet with an explanation.
the doctrine is applied only if unsure and if no
direct evidence of who is at fault. when you cannot
tell who is at fault but you can tell what
contributed to the injury.
Requisites of the doctrine:
1. the accident is of a kind or character which
ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone's negligence
2. it is caused by an instrumentality or an agency
within the exclusive management or control of the
defendant or defendants
3. the possibility of contributing conduct which
would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
Emergency Rule
- a person who, without fault or negligence on his
part , is suddenly placed in an emergency or
unexpected danger and compelled to act instantly
and instinctively with no time for reflection and
exercise of the required precaution, is not guilty of
negligence and therefore, exempt from liability, if
he did not make the wisest choice of the available
courses of conduct to avoid injury which
reasonably a prudent person would have made
under normal circumstances.
- the rule is not available where the situation or
danger was caused by his own negligence.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article
2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on
the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business
or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Principle of vicarious liability
- a person is made liable not only for torts
committed by himself but also for torts committed
by others with whom he has certain relationship
and for whom he is responsible , subject to certain
conditions.
Liability of parents
both parents shall be liable as amended by the
family code
Scope of liability
1. minor children who live in their company
2. minor child is already married and minor is not
living with parents if the separation of unjustifiable
because of the failure of the parents to properly
exercise their parental authority and responsibility.
Respondent superior - negligence
Vicarous libility - liability
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused
by his dependents or employees may recover from
the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Does not concern on either joint or solidary
liability.
-persons enumerated under 2180 are given the
right to seek reimbursement from the author for
"what he has paid of or delivered in satisfaction of
the claim " of the plaintiff.
Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian
ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or
whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it
may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who
has suffered damage. (1905)
Main consideration for liability: if there is control.
He who possesses the animal for utility, pleasure or
service must answer for the damage which such
animal may cause.
Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who
was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the
due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if
he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (n)
Applicability of 2184
the article applies only if the owner was at the
vehicle at the time of the mishap otherwise, the
provisions of article 2180 would be applicable,
where the owner even if not in the vehicle will be
liable unless he exercised due diligence to prevent
the damage.
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary,
it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation. (n)
Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall
file with the proper government office a bond
executed by a government-controlled corporation
or office, to answer for damages to third persons.
The amount of the bond and other terms shall be
fixed by the competent public official. (n)
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers. (n)
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule
that negligence is not presumed.
Requisites for liability
1. defendant is a manufacturer or processor
2. products manufactured or processed are
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods
3. defendant used noxious or harmful substances in
the manufacture of processing
4. death or injury was caused by the product
consumed or used containing such noxious or
harmful substances.
5. victim is the consumer, user or purchaser
Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if the
death or injury results from his possession of
dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession
or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or
business. (n)
Prima facie presumption that the defendant was
negligent if:
1. a person dies or in injured
2. death or injury results from the defendant's
possession of dangerous weapon or substances.
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities
shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their
control or supervision. (n)
Head of the family - may not be the owner of the
building and it may include lessee who lives in the
building or a part thereof.
Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more
persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
(n)

Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or Proscription of action upon quasi-delict

structure is responsible for the damages resulting Article 1146. The following actions must be
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due instituted within four years:
to the lack of necessary repairs. (1907)
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
Liability of proprietor - if he failed to make (2) Upon a quasi-delict;
necessary repairs
However, when the action arises from or out of any
Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible act, activity, or conduct of any public officer
for damages caused: involving the exercise of powers or authority
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not arising from Martial Law including the arrest,
been taken care of with due diligence, and the detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same
inflammation of explosive substances which have must be brought within one (1) year. (As amended
not been kept in a safe and adequate place; by PD No. 1755, Dec. 24, 1980.)
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place. (1908)

Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two

preceding articles should be the result of any
defect in the construction mentioned in article
1723, the third person suffering damages may
proceed only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article, within
the period therein fixed. (1909)

2190 talks about the defect in the construction -

engineer or architect shall be liable for any damage
or injury y the defect.

Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a

building or a part thereof, is responsible for
damages caused by things thrown or falling from
the same. (1910)

Licuanan, Apple Jade S.

Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)