GUILLERMO BALANDAN, ANSELMA ANILA and THE COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952

PARTIES:
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. -
petitioner
Guillermo Balandan, Anselma Anila
private respondents, parents of Mario Balandan

FACTS:
Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant, in whose premises were installed two tanks full of water, nine feet deep, for cooling purposes
of its engine. The factory was fenced but anyone could easily enter the premises because the entrance gate was continually open and there was no
guard assigned in the said gate. Also,
the tanks didn’t have any fence
or top covers.
Private respondents’
son, Mario, a boy barely 8 years old, while playing with and in company of other boys of his age entered the factory premises through the gate, to
take a bath in one of said tanks; and while thus bathing, Mario sank to the bottom of the tank, only to be fished out later, already a cadaver,
having been died of "asphyxia secondary to drowning The lower court decided in the favor of the parents stating that that the petitioner is liable
for damages due to the fact that the petitioner maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks), and neglected to adopt the necessary precautions to
avoid accidents to persons entering its premises, applying the doctrine of attractive nuissance. The CA affirmed it.

ISSUE
: Whether the subject water tanks are attractive nuisance

HELD: NO.

The doctrine of attractive nuisance states that “One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises. The principle reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so
enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to
such children American jurisprudence shows us that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as
well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. In the case bar, the water
tanks themselves do not fall under such doctrine thus,
the petitioners cannot be held liable for Mario’s death.
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered an attractive nuisance was lucidly explained by the Indiana
Appellate Court as follows: Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of
drowning. Against this danger children are early instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private
property creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger, . . . (he) is not
liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance." The appealed decision is reversed and the Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is absolved from
liability. No costs.

Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
The case is a petition regarding Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board’s (DARAB) order of compulsory acquisition of petitioner’s
property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). Sta. Rosa was the registered owner of two parcels of land in Cabuyao Laguna. According to them, these lands are watersheds which
provide clean and potable (drinkable) water to the Canlubang community and that 90 light industries are located in that area. They were alleging
respondents usurped its rights over their property thereby destroying the ecosystem. Since the said land provides water to the residents,
respondents sought an easement of a right of a way to and from Barangay Castile, to which, by counterclaim, Sta. Rosa sought ejectment against
respondents. Respondents went to the DAR and filed a case for compulsory acquisition of the Sta. Rosa Property under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. Compulsory acquisition is the power of the government to acquire private rights in land without the willing consent of
its owner or occupant in order to benefit the society. The said land was inspected by the Municipal and Agrarian Reform Officer, and upon
consensus of the authorities concerned, they decided that the said land must be placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioners filed an objection
on the ground that: The area is not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes 18% and above. (which falls
under the exception in compulsory acquisition of CARP) The occupants of the land were illegal settlers or (squatters) who by no means are
entitled to the land as beneficiaries. Another issue raised by the petitioners was that the DAR failed to follow the due process because instead of
paying just compensation, a trust account was made in favour of the petitioners.

Issues: 1. Whether these parcels of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of the CARP? 2. Whether the petition of
land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted?
 Court Ruling: 1. Art. 67 of the Water Code: Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any ground water may
be declared by DENR as a protected area. In this case, the DENR did not declare the land as a protected area, In the past the municipality issued a
resolution that the said land is an agricultural land. 2. Although evidence of petitioners is strong, the Supreme Court opines that the area must be
maintained for watershed purposes for ecological and environmental considerations despite the 88 families who are beneficiaries of the CARP. It
is important that a larger view of the situation be taken because of the thousands of residents downstream if the watershed will not be protected
and maintained for its natural purpose. 3. D
espite Supreme Court’s strong opinion of protection of watersheds as an intergenerational
responsibility, they however ordered to DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the case since the said land falls under exception.