PARAS NOTES
Title VIII - NUISANCE damages, one incapable of pecuniary estimation?;
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defi es or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Nuisance
 is one of the most serious hindrances to the
enjoyment of life and property.
 is derived from the Latin nocumentum or the French
nuire (to harm or hurt or injure).
 may be used to refer either to the harm caused or
that which causes the harm, or both.
Nuisance Trespass
not necessarily there is there is entry into another’s
entry into another’s property
property
Injury is only consequential injury is direct and
immediate
Nuisance Negligence
wrong, not because of the penalized because of
presence or absence of lack of proper care
care, but because of the
injury caused
Examples of Nuisances
1. “Injures or endangers the health or safety of others’’
 House in danger of falling;
 Fireworks or explosives factory
 Houses and similar constructions without
building permits
2. “Annoys or offends the senses’’
 Too much horn blowing;
 A leather factory;
 Garbage cans;
3. “Shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality’’
 Public exhibition of a naked woman
 A house of prostitution
4. “Obtructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street or any body of water’’
 Houses constructed on public streets
 Market stalls and residences constructed
on a public plaza
5. “Hinders or impairs the use of property’’
 Illegal constructions on another’s land
AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp.
506 SCRA 625 (2006)
FACTS: A noise emanated from a blower of the
air-conditioning unit of a building.
ISSUES:
1. Is it a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in
the due course of proceedings or a nuisance per se?
2. Is an action for abatement of a private nuisance,
more specifically noise generated by the blower of an
air-conditioning system, even if the plaintiff prays for
and
3. What is the determining factor when noise alone is
the cause of complaint?
HELD:
1. It is a nuisance to be resolved only by the courts in
the due course of proceedings; the noise is not a
nuisance per se. Noise becomes actionable only
when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to
the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the
maker to the needs of the listener. Injury to a
particular person in a peculiar position or of
especially sensitive characteristics will not render the
house an actionable nuisance –– in the conditions, of
present living, noise seems inseparable from the
conduct of many necessary occupations.
2. Yes, the action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the basic issue is something
other than the right to recover a sum of money.
3. The determining factor is not its intensity or volume; it
is that the noise is of such character as to produce
actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a
person of ordinary sensibilities rendering adjacent
property less comfortable and valuable.
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public
nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons, although the extent of
the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may
be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included
in the foregoing definition.
Classification of Nuisances
A. Old classification (per se, per accidens).
1. nuisance per se — always a nuisance
(Example: a house of prostitution).
2. nuisance per accidens — a nuisance only
because of the location or other circumstances.
(Example: a noisy factory in a residential
district.)
[NOTE: The above classification is no longer useful, since
there are very few nuisances per se.]
B. New classification
1. According to relief (whether given or not).
a) actionable.
b) non-actionable.
2. According to manner of relief.
a) those abatable by criminal and civil actions
b) those abatable only by civil actions
c) those abatable judicially
d) those abatable extrajudicially
3. According to the Civil Code.
a) PUBLIC (common) — affects a community
or neighborhood or any considerable
number of persons
 criminal proceedings may be used for
abatement.
 Ex. a noisy or dangerous factory in a
residential district.
b) PRIVATE — that which is NOT public.
 criminal proceedings are not a
remedy.
 Ex. an illegally constructed dam
partially resting on another’s estate.
1
PARAS NOTES
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property
who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property
started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in
the same manner as the one who created it.
 The successor, to be held liable, must knowingly fail
or refuse to abate the nuisance.
NOTE: the law says successive “owner OR
possessor”
 Liability of Two or More Persons Responsible for a
Nuisance - If there was common design or interest,
the liability is solidary (not merely joint)
 If a person sets up a nuisance on his land, then
leases the property to another, he cannot escape
liability. Moreover, continuation of the nuisance after
the lease becomes effective likewise makes the
lessor liable. The lessee will be liable only when he
knowingly allows its existence. The same is true with
a purchaser.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude
the right of any person injured to recover damages for its
past existence.
 The remedies of abatement and damages are
cumulative, that is, both may be demanded.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance,
whether public or private.
GR: The action to abate a public or private nuisance is not
extinguished by prescription.
Exception: Do not apply to easements which are
extinguished by obstruction and non-user for ten years.
Ongsiako, et al. v. Ongsiako, et al.
L-7510, Mar. 30, 1957
FACTS: Plaintiffs had an easement of natural drainage
over defendant’s land, but the defendants obstructed the
easement by constructing a dam in 1938. The action to
destroy the dam was filed in 1951, on the theory, among
other things, that the dam was a nuisance and therefore
could never be legalized and that the action could not
prescribe.
ISSUE: Has the action prescribed?
HELD: Yes, because of Art. 631 which is an exception to
Art. 698. Moreover, granting that the dam was originally a
nuisance, it must have been due to its interference with the
plaintiff’s right of drainage; but since that same right of
drainage had become extinct by non-user for 10 years
(1938-1948), after that period, the dam could no longer
interfere with the terminated rights, and was no longer a
nuisance when this action was instituted in 1951.
Moreover, under the law of nuisances in 1938, while no
right to maintain a public nuisance could be acquired by
prescription, the right to maintain a private nuisance could
be acquired by prescription. Since the defendant’s
prescriptive rights were acquired under said law, any
contradictory rule in the new Code should not be allowed
to operate retroactively to their prejudice.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local
ordinance; or
2) A civil action; or
3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
 In a criminal action, the plaintiffs are “People of the
Philippines.’’
 A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and
constructions thereon can be abated summarily by
the municipality. (Tamin v. CA)
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one
or all of the remedies against a public nuisance are availed
of.
EXCEPTION TO ART. 700:
Under the Revised Charter for Manila (which controls,
because it is a special law), the proper official insofar as
illegal constructions or houses on public streets are
concerned, is the City Engineer. (Sitchon v. Aquino)
 If the district health officer (or the city engineer as the
case may be) is not consulted beforehand in the case
of the extrajudicial abatement of a nuisance, the
person doing the abating are not necessarily liable.
They would be liable for damages only if as stated
under Art. 707.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the
maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be
commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
 The Article explains itself.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether
or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best
remedy against a public nuisance.
Who Determines Which Remedy is Best?
1. In the City of Manila, the City Engineer is the official
concerned regarding illegal construction (Sitchon v.
Aquino)
2. In other places, it is the District (City) Health Officer.
Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account
of a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself.
GR: it is ordinarily the mayor who must bring the civil
action to abate a public nuisance.
Exception: But a private individual can also do so, if the
public nuisance is SPECIALLY INJURIOUS to himself.
 The action may be for injunction, abatement or for
damages. (In both of course, he must show special
damage to himself).
2
PARAS NOTES

Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance

which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if
necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the
same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
1. That demand be first made upon the owner or
possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
2. That such demand has been rejected;
3. That the abatement be approved by the district health
officer and executed with the assistance of the local
police; and
4. That the value of the destruction does not exceed
three thousand pesos.

 Requisites for Extrajudicial Abatement of a Public

Nuisance
.
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
1. A civil action; or
2. Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

Criminal prosecution is not mentioned. However, if indeed

a crime has been committed, as defined by the Revised
Penal Code, criminal prosecution can proceed.

Defenses
1. estoppel, public necessity,
2. the non-existence of the nuisance,
3. impossibility of abatement.

Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may

abate it by removing, or if necessary by destroying the
thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a
breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However,
it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial
abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be
followed.

 The Article explains itself.

Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially

abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
1. If he causes unnecessary injury; or
2. If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts
to be not a real nuisance.

Person liable for damages may be:

1. a private person, or
2. a public official.