STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision. 2. Whether or not the defendant validly abated the nuisance when she lodged a complaint before the Homeowner's Association 3. Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant 4. Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the truck of her carpenter ran over the plaintiff's dog

ARGUMENTS
1. Plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because the dog endangered the safety of a resident of the subdivision. The dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of a resident inside the subdivision. Our laws on property states that: "A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health and safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water; (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property." (Article 694, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Here the plaintiff allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because it was ran over by a truck while on the street. Plaintiff's dog was not kept inside any cage or in a leash because it could sleep in plaintiff's room, lie on the floor or be found on defendant's yard. Plaintiff's dog was therefore free to move around freely. When plaintiff's dog was roaming the streets of the subdivision, it endangered the defendant's girl because it chased her on the street. Plaintiff's dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of defendant because it dug holes on defendant's lawn, pulled out the plants in her yard and deposited wastes on her driveway or peed in front of her house that left a very foul smell. Therefore plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam on the streets and yard of her neighbor because it endangered the defendant's girl . It also caused annoyance and offended the senses of the defendant. Our laws on Property further states that "[n]uisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable amount 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."(Article 695, New Civil Code) Here, the nuisance maybe regarded as a private nuisance because it only affects an identifiable number of persons. Specifically, the defendant, her family and her surroundings. 2. Defendant failed to abate the nuisance because he did not obtain the approval of the City Health Officer to authorize him to abate the nuisance. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 3. The carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant because he failed to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision. 2. Whether or not the defendant validly abated the nuisance when she lodged a complaint before the Homeowner's Association 3. Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant 4. Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the truck of her carpenter ran over the plaintiff's dog

ARGUMENTS
1. Plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because the dog endangered the safety of a resident of the subdivision. The dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of a resident inside the subdivision. Our laws on property states that: "A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health and safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water; (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property." (Article 694, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Here the plaintiff allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because it was ran over by a truck while on the street. Plaintiff's dog was not kept inside any cage or in a leash because it could sleep in plaintiff's room, lie on the floor or be found on defendant's yard. Plaintiff's dog was therefore free to move around freely. When plaintiff's dog was roaming the streets of the subdivision, it endangered the defendant's girl because it chased her on the street. Plaintiff's dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of defendant because it dug holes on defendant's lawn, pulled out the plants in her yard and deposited wastes on her driveway or peed in front of her house that left a very foul smell. Therefore plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam on the streets and yard of her neighbor because it endangered the defendant's girl . It also caused annoyance and offended the senses of the defendant. Our laws on Property further states that "[n]uisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable amount 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."(Article 695, New Civil Code) Here, the nuisance maybe regarded as a private nuisance because it only affects an identifiable number of persons. Specifically, the defendant, her family and her surroundings. 2. Defendant failed to abate the nuisance because he did not obtain the approval of the City Health Officer to authorize him to abate the nuisance. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 3. The carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant because he failed to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision. 2. Whether or not the defendant validly abated the nuisance when she lodged a complaint before the Homeowner's Association 3. Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant 4. Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the truck of her carpenter ran over the plaintiff's dog

ARGUMENTS
1. Plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because the dog endangered the safety of a resident of the subdivision. The dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of a resident inside the subdivision. Our laws on property states that: "A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health and safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water; (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property." (Article 694, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Here the plaintiff allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because it was ran over by a truck while on the street. Plaintiff's dog was not kept inside any cage or in a leash because it could sleep in plaintiff's room, lie on the floor or be found on defendant's yard. Plaintiff's dog was therefore free to move around freely. When plaintiff's dog was roaming the streets of the subdivision, it endangered the defendant's girl because it chased her on the street. Plaintiff's dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of defendant because it dug holes on defendant's lawn, pulled out the plants in her yard and deposited wastes on her driveway or peed in front of her house that left a very foul smell. Therefore plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam on the streets and yard of her neighbor because it endangered the defendant's girl . It also caused annoyance and offended the senses of the defendant. Our laws on Property further states that "[n]uisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable amount 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."(Article 695, New Civil Code) Here, the nuisance maybe regarded as a private nuisance because it only affects an identifiable number of persons. Specifically, the defendant, her family and her surroundings. 2. Defendant failed to abate the nuisance because he did not obtain the approval of the City Health Officer to authorize him to abate the nuisance. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 3. The carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant because he failed to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision. 2. Whether or not the defendant validly abated the nuisance when she lodged a complaint before the Homeowner's Association 3. Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant 4. Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the truck of her carpenter ran over the plaintiff's dog

ARGUMENTS
1. Plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because the dog endangered the safety of a resident of the subdivision. The dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of a resident inside the subdivision. Our laws on property states that: "A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health and safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public highway or street or any body of water; (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property." (Article 694, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Here the plaintiff allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because it was ran over by a truck while on the street. Plaintiff's dog was not kept inside any cage or in a leash because it could sleep in plaintiff's room, lie on the floor or be found on defendant's yard. Plaintiff's dog was therefore free to move around freely. When plaintiff's dog was roaming the streets of the subdivision, it endangered the defendant's girl because it chased her on the street. Plaintiff's dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of defendant because it dug holes on defendant's lawn, pulled out the plants in her yard and deposited wastes on her driveway or peed in front of her house that left a very foul smell. Therefore plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam on the streets and yard of her neighbor because it endangered the defendant's girl . It also caused annoyance and offended the senses of the defendant. Our laws on Property further states that "[n]uisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable amount 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."(Article 695, New Civil Code) Here, the nuisance maybe regarded as a private nuisance because it only affects an identifiable number of persons. Specifically, the defendant, her family and her surroundings. 2. Defendant failed to abate the nuisance because he did not obtain the approval of the City Health Officer to authorize him to abate the nuisance. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 3. The carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant because he failed to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.