Please state your position regarding the issue of the case. Answer may include/cite articles from the Civil Code of the Philippines. Answer should be concise and brief.

Case: Berto and Juan are the owners of Prosperity, a hacienda in Tarlac City. They entered into a contract with Seedling Milling Company Incorporated for the milling of palay from their hacienda.

Stipulated in the contract is the construction of a railroad with three and a half meters right of way and maintenance of such railroad by the Seedling Milling Company. However, the Seedling Milling Company was only able to construct a railroad reaching hacienda Luisita, four kilometers away from hacienda Prosperity. The path of the railroad has to pass through the haciendas of La Paz. Since she would not grant permission to use her land, this would result to the prevention of the compliance of the obligation to mill. For a railroad to extend to hacienda Prosperity, the construction would require a gradual elevation of 4.84% to 7%, would necessitate 26 curves and would cost Php10,080,000.00. A civil engineer testifying in behalf of the defendants allege that to construct such would be possible but it would be very dangerous.

This led to an action for damages in the amount of Php 10,028,620.00 by the petitioners for the alleged breach of contract to mill palay at the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The court ruled against the petitioners and on the cross-complaint of the defendants, condemned the petitioners to pay the sum of Php 10,012, 114.00.

Issue: Whether or not the action for damages should prosper.