Guilatco vs City fo Dagupan

Doctrine: It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province, city or
municipality for liability to attach. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised
over the defective road or street.

FACTS: Florentina Guilatco was about to board a tricycle at a sidewalk located at Perez Blvd. (a national
road) when she accidentally fell into an open manhole. Her right leg was fractured, resulting in her
hospitalization and continuing difficulty in locomotion. Because of her accident, Guilatco was unable to
go to work, thereby losing her income. She also lost weight, and she is now no longer her former jovial
self since she is unable to perform her religious, social, and other activities. She filed an action for
damages against the City of Dagupan. The City of Dagupan denied liability on the ground that the
manhole was located on a national road, which was not under the control or supervision of the City of
Dagupan.

ISSUE: Whether the City of Dagupan is liable to Guilatco.

HELD: Yes, the City of Dagupan is liable. For Article 2189 to apply, it is not necessary for the defective
road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality. The article only requires that either control
or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. In this case, this control or supervision is
provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer, whose duties include
the care and custody of the public system of waterworks and sewers. The charter of Dagupan provides
that the laying out, construction, and improvement of streets, avenues, and alleys and sidewalks and the
regulation of the use thereof may be legislated by the Municipal Board. Thus, the charter clearly
indicates that the city indeed has supervision and control over the sidewalk where the open drainage
hole is located.