Calma v CA| GR No. 78447 – August 17, 1989 | Cortes, J.
| COMMISSION did not make any finding of
Nuisance | by Jasper a nuisance. Apparently, on the basis of position papers, the COMMISSION FACTS: assumed the existence of the nuisance, ● Petitioners, Spouses Resituto and Pilar Calma without receiving evidence on the matter, purchased a lot in Pleasantville Dev. Corp.'s, to support its order for the prevention or respondent, subdivision known as City Heights abatement of the alleged nuisance. Phase II. They built a house on said lot and b. Moreover, the spouses Ong, were not established residence therein. even party to the proceedings before the ● Fabian and Nenita Ong also purchased from COMMISSION who would be directly Pleasantville a lot fronting that of the Calma affected by a decision favorable to spouses and constructed their own buildings where petitioner. To declare their property or the they resided and conducted their business. activities being conducted therein a ● After sometime, petitioners wrote the president of nuisance, and to order prevention and the subdivision's association complaining that the abatement, without giving them an compound of the Ongs was being utilized as a opportunity to be heard would be in lumber yards and that a "loathsome noise and violation of their basic right to due nervous developing sound" emanating therein process. disturbed him and his family and causes illness to c. Hence, no reversible error was committed their son. by the Court of Appeals when it nullified ● The president, in his reply, stated that the the assailed portion of the COMMISSION's association's board had referred the matter to decision, the order granting the writ of Fabian Ong who had already taken immediate execution, and any writ of execution action on the complaint. issued pursuant thereto. ● However, the measure taken by the commission d. But all is not lost for petitioner and his and Fabian Ong is unsatisfactory. family. There is still a pending civil case ● Thus, the Calma spouses filed a complaint for instituted by petitioner. In said proceeding damages against the Ong spouses and Pleasantville the factual issues can be fully threshed out before CFI Negros Occidental alleging that were it and the Ong spouses, the parties who shall not for Pleasantville's act of selling the lot to the be directly affected by any adverse Ongs and its failure to exercise its right to cause the judgment, shall be afforded the demolition of the alleged illegal construction, the opportunity to be heard as they had been nuisance could not have existed and no damages impleaded as defendants therein together could have been sustained. with PLEASANTVILLE ● The Calma spouses also filed with the NHA a RULING: the decision of the Court of Appeals, the same is complaint for "violation of the provisions, rules and hereby AFFIRMED and the petition DENIED for lack of regulation of the subdivision and condominium merit. buyers protective decree under PD No. 957." ● The Commission (Took over the powers of the NHA for the mean time): dismissed the complaint of the petitioner for lack of merit, finding that Pleasantville did not violate any provisions of PD 957, but included a portion holding Pleasantville responsible for the abatement of the alleged nuisance on the ground that it was par of its implied warranty that its subdivisions and lots would be used solely and primarily for residential purpose. ● CA: The Commission acted capriciously and in excess of its jurisdiction in imposing an obligation upon the petitioner after absolving it of the complaint filed against it. ● ISSUES/RATIO: 1. Whether or not the Commission gravely abuse its discretion in ruling that Ongs property constituted a nuisance. a. Yes. The COMMISSION's conclusion that the activities being conducted and the structures in the property of the Ongs constituted a nuisance was not supported by any evidence. The Solicitor General himself, in his comment filed in the Court of Appeals, admits that the decision of the