1.

SITCHON v AQUINO (98 PHIL 458) law since the City Engineer gave them notice and time to vacate
Facts: the premises.
● Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public
● 6 class suits were filed against the City Engineer of Manila to
streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the
prevent him from carrying out his threat to demolish the houses of
public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute
petitioners, on the ground that said houses constitute public
nuisances per se
nuisances.
● Petitioners constructed houses in areas of Manila City without Doctrine: Houses constructed without governmental authority constitute as
obtaining consent from the authorities but paid concesion fees to a nuisances per se..
the City Treasurer with the annotation reading: "without prejudice
to the order to vacate." Doctrine: Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public
● The houses were constructed on roads(Calabash Road-Sitchon’s streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said
house)(Antipolo St. and Algercias St.-De la Cruz et al.)(R. Papa streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside
extension-Peña et al.),(Torres Bugallon, Cavite, Misericordia and from public nuisances. As such, the summary removal thereof, without
Antipolo Streets-Sayo et al.), an estero (Estero de San Miguel- judicial process or proceedings may be authorized by the statute or
Brotmonte et al.), on Pasig river(navarro et al.) municipal ordinance, despite the due process clause.
● CFI of Manila ruled that subject properties constitute as public
nuisance.
● Petitioners argue that the decision should be reversed on the
ground that they were deprived of due process and that under the
New Civil Code it is the district health officer that has the authority
to remove public nuisances and not the City Engineer.
Issue: W/n: the subject properties are public nuisances? YES

Ruling:
● The Court affirmed the lower court and stated that such properties
are public nuisances since the houses were constructed on public
streets, with the exception of the houses or built on portions of
river beds.
● Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(4)Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water; or
● The City Engineer has authority granted by the Revised Charter of
the City of Manila, petitioners were not deprived of due process of
 2. VELASCO v MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (40 SCRA
342)
Facts
1. In 1948, Pedro Velasco bought 3 adjoining lots in Diliman from
the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation. The lots were at
the corner of South D and South 6 Streets.
2. Subsequently, Velasco sold 2 of the lots to Meralco. He retained
the lot farthest from the street corner where he built his house.
3. Meralco started the construction of a substation without prior
building permit or authority from the Public Service Commission
a. The facility reduces high voltage electricity to a current
suitable for distribution to the company’s consumers
(8,500 homes, 300 commercial establishments and 30
industries)
b. Constructed at a distance of 10 to 20 meters from
Velasco’s house
c. Meralco also built a stone and cement wall at the sides
along the streets BUT along the side adjoining
Velasco’s property, a sawale wall but later changed it
to an interlink wire fence
4. An unceasing sound emanates from the substation lieke that of an
airplane
5. Velasco filed a complaint for the abatement of the substation as a
nuisance and for damages to his health and business = P487,600
6. Velasco’s contentions
a. Since 1954, it had disturbed his concentration and sleep
b. Also impaired his health (anxiety neurosis, pyelonephritis,
ureteritis, lumbago and anemia) and lowered the value of
his property
7. Trial court dismissed the complaint
Issue: W/N the substation constitutes a nuisance? -- YES
Ruling: MERALCO ORDERED TO EITHER TRANSFER THE
SUBSTATION OR TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO REDUCE
ITS NOISE AT THE PROPERTY LINE TO AN AVERAGE OF 40-50
DECIBELS; PAY P20K IN DAMAGES
1. Generally, everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary
inconveniences that result from the proximity of others.
2. HOWEVER, if the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such
proximity habitually brings, the neighbor causes such disturbance
is liable for damages.
3. Laws of nuisances is of American origin
4. Causing or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may
constitute an actionable nuisance
a. Such noise must be one which affects injuriously the
health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an
unreasonable extent
b. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of
specially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise
an actionable nuisance
c. The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of
complaint is not its intensity or volume but that it
produces actual physical discomfort and annoyance
thereby rendering the adjacent property less comfortable
and valuable
d. Inquiry must be directed at the character and intensity of
the noise generated
5. Here, testimonies of other witnesses were admitted and considered
by the Court. But such were vague and imprecise. So the Court
relied on quantitative measurements using a sound level meter. The
sound level samples ranged from 46 to 80 decibels
6. The noise continuously emitted constitutes an actionable nuisance.
Meralco must replace the interlink wire fence with a partition made
of sound absorbent material since the relocation of the substation is
manifestly impractical
7. Absence of suit does not lessen Meralco’s liability under the law
nor weakens the right of others against it to demand their just due
8. The noise is not an exclusive causative factor of Velasco’s
illnesses because other residents have not become sick
Doctrine: Causing or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may
constitute an actionable nuisance
Doctrine: The general rule is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or
customary inconveniences that result from the proximity of others, and so
long as this level is not surpassed, he may not complain against them. But if
the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity habitually
brings, is liable, for being guilty of causing nuisance. The causing or
maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may constitute an actionable
nuisance
3. ILOILO COLD STORAGE v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (24
PHIL 471)
Facts:
● The Municipal Council granted the authority for Iloilo Cold
Storage to construct an ice plant in Iloilo.
● The plant was completed and was in operation
● The nearby residents complained thereof on the ground that it was
a nuisance due to the smoke from the plant as such was injurious to
their health
● The committee found that the complaint was well grounded and
ordered that Iloilo Cold Storage should elevate their smokestacks if
not done, Iloilo COld Storage would be required to close down
W/n the resolution by the municipal council is sufficient to label and abate
the supposed nuisance? NO
Ruling:
● The Court differentiated nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens.
Nuisance per se are those unquestionably and under all
circumstances nuisances, such as gambling houses, houses of ill
fame, etc. Nuisance per accidens are those because of special
circumstances and conditions surrounding them.
● The court stated that the ice factory of the plaintiff is not a
nuisance per se. It is a legitimate industry, beneficial to the people,
and conducive to their health and comfort.
● It is clear that municipal councils have, under the code, the power
to declare and abate nuisances, but it is equally clear that they do
not have the power to find as a fact that a particular thing is a
nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per se.
● If it be in fact a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, that
question cannot be determined by a mere resolution of the board
but can be determined by the court.
Doctrine: City Council cannot, by a mere resolution or motion, declare any
particular thing a nuisance which has not been declared to be such by law,
or so adjudged by the court.
Abatement of nuisances in other cases – DOCTRINE – If no compelling
necessity requires the summary abatement of a nuisance, the municipal
authorities under their power to declare and abate nuisances, don’t have the
right to compel the abatement of a particular thing or act as a nuisance
without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing
the same of the time and place of hearing before a tribunal authority to
decide whether the thing is a nuisance or not.
 4. NORTH GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION v ATTY. NARCISO
MORALES (G.R. No. 222821, Aug. 9, 2017)
Facts
1. Atty. Morales is a resident of North Greenhills Subdivision. His
house is located alongside Club Filipino Avenue and adjacent to
McKinley Park
2. Morales built a door through the wall separating his house from the
park. As such, it opens directly into the park.
3. North Greenhills Association owned the park and acquired
ownership through a donation by Ortigas & Company, Limited.
4. NGA started constructing a pavilion occupying the side of the park
adjacent to Morales’ house. Part of the design was a public
restroom to serve the needs of the park guests. It was constructed
alongside the concrete wall.
5. Morales objected to the construction of the restroom and filed a
complaint before the HLURB. He contended that:
a. For 33 years, he had an open, continuous and unhampered
access to the park
b. Having such access to the park was one of the
considerations why he purchased the lot
c. Restroom was a nuisance per accidens
6. NGA contended that:
a. As the absolute owner of the park, it had the absolute right
to fence the property
b. Construction of the restroom was for the use and benefit
of all NGA members
c. Atty. Morales’ use of a side entrance for 33 years could
not have ripened into any right because easement of right
of way could not be acquired by prescription
7. HLURB ordered the removal of the pavilion and relocation of the
restroom
8. HLURB Board ordered the relocation of the restroom so as not to
block Morales’ side door access
9. Office of the President affirmed the ruling. CA also affirmed
a. Restroom posed sanitary issues
Issue: W/N the public restroom is a nuisance per accidens? -- NO
Ruling: DECISION REVERSED
1. A nuisance per accidens is one which depends upon certain
conditions and circumstances and its existence being a question of
fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing
2. Proper appreciation of evidence before a court or tribunal rules that
the property being maintained is a nuisance per accidens
3. CA’s decision is merely speculative by its use of “would, should,
could.” It was not sure that the restroom has caused such
annoyance to Morales or his family.
4. No evidence that the restroom annoyed Morales’ senses, that the
foul order emanated from it or that it posed sanitary issues
detrimental to his family’s health
5. No certification by the City Health Officer was even submitted
6. NGA has the legal right to block the access door being the absolute
owner of the park
a. Morales never introduced any evidence that he had
acquired any right by prescription, agreement or legal
easement to access the park through his side door
b. He has other means to reach the park
Doctrine: A nuisance per accidens cannot be abated without due hearing as
its existence is a question of fact and depends upon certain conditions and
circumstances
DOCTRINE: A nuisance per accidens requires a proper appreciation of
evidence before a court or tribunal rules that the property being maintained
is a nuisance per accidens
 5. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES v BALANDAN (91 PHIL 488) Doctrine: The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to
Facts: bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual
● Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of an ice-plant factory in condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.
San Pablo, Laguna,
● two tanks full of water were installed nine feet deep, for cooling
purposes of its engine.
● The compound was surrounded by fence but the tanks were not
covered
● No guard was assigned on the gate
● Mario Balanadan, a boy barely 8 years old, while playing with
other children entered the factory through the gate and bathe in one
of the water tanks and eventually drowned and died of asphyxia
● Balandan filed a case for damages for the death of their son.
● CFI of Laguna and CA ruled that Hidalgo Enterprise maintained an
attractive nuisance (the tanks) and neglected to avoid necessary
precautions to avoid accident to persons that enter the premises.

Issue: W/n the water tanks were attractive nuisance? NO

Ruling:
● The Court ruled that the water tanks are not an attractive nuisance.
● The Court used the explanation by the Indiana Appellate Court
wherein it stated that “Nature has created streams, lakes and pools
which attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger
of drowning. Against this danger children are early instructed so
that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if the
owner of private property creates an artificial pool on his own
property, merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any
new danger, . . . (he) is not liable because of having created an
'attractive nuisance.’
● Given that the tanks are not an attractive nuisance whether the
petitioner had taken reasonable precautions is immaterial.

Doctrine: Pools and water tanks are not attractive nuisances.

 6. CAMILO TAMIN v CA (May 8, 1992)
Facts:
1. The Municipality of Dumingag, Zamboanga Del Sur owned a
parcel of residential land which was reserved for a public plaza
under a Presidential Proclamation
2. The Municipality leased an area of 1,350 sqm to Vicente Medina
and Fortunata Rosellon subject to the condition that they should
vacate the place in case it is needed for public purposes
3. Medina and Rosellon religiously paid rentals until 1967 when they
filed a Cadastral Answer over the lot
4. They also refused to vacate the premises despite the fact that a
municipal gymnasium was being constructed
5. Because of their buildings, the construction could not be continued
which caused the possibility of the appropriation made for the
gymnasium to be reverted back to the national government
6. The Municipality, represented by Mayor Real, filed an ejectment
complaint against Medina and Rosellon
7. RTC granted a writ of possession and writ of demolition
8. Medina and Rosellon filed an MR alleging that:
a. Medina bought the parcel of land from a Subunan native
b. Rosellon leased a portion of the land from Medina
c. They were never lessees of the Municipality
Issue: W/N the Municipality of Dumingag is entitled to the writ of
possession and writ of demolition? -- NO
Ruling: PETITION DISMISSED
1. Art. 694 provides that a nuisance is any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property or anything else
which hinders or impairs the use of property
2. Moreover, Art. 695 provides that 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.
3. The Court held that the complaint alleges factual circumstances for
abatement of public nuisance
4. Art. 699 provides 3 remedies against a public nuisance
a. A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance
b. Civil action OR
c. Abatement, without judicial proceedings
5. The Municipality chose to file a civil action for the recovery of
possession of the parcel of land. It was aware that under the old
Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan has to first pass
an ordinance before the municipality may summarily abate a public
nuisance
6. A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and can be abated
summarily by the municipality.
7. HOWEVER, the status of the parcel of land has yet to be decided
a. The Presidential Proclamation recognizes private rights
b. Before the Proclamation was issued, the parcel of land
was the subject of cadastral proceedings intended to settle
the ownership of Medina (w/n he has just title over the
land)
c. The outcome of the cadastral proceedings is a prejudicial
question = legality of the occupation by Medina and
Rosellon is still to be resolved in the cadastral
proceedings
d. Issuance of the writ of possession and writ of demolition
was premature. The Municipality should have waited for
the final outcome of the cadastral proceedings
e. If Medina is to be declared owner → entitled to just
compensation
f. If not → not entitled to any compensation for the
demolition of their buildings
g. As such, Municipality was ordered by the Court to put up
a bond to be determined by the trial court
Doctrine: A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and can be abated
summarily by the municipality
DOCTRINE: In order to determine if a complaint for abatement of
nuisance is applicable, the complaint must comply with the criteria provided
for in the Art 694 and Art 695. If a complaint for abatement of nuisance
complies with the criteria, Article 699 provides for the remedies against a
public nuisance:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance; or (2) A
civil action; or (3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
7. SUBIDO v OZAETA (80 PHIL 383)
Facts:
● Subido, editor of the Manila Post, filed a petition for mandamus to
compel the Registry of Deeds to furnish him(Subido) the list of
real estates sold to aliens and registered with the Register of Deeds
of Manila or to allow the petitioner or his duly accredited
representatives (to) examine all records in the respondents' custody
relative to the (said) transactions
● The petition to furnish the the list of real estates was denied by the
Secretary of Justice
● The Solicitor General representing the respondents answered that
Subido or his representatives are not allowed to examine said
records.
● The Solicitor General contends that "the examination or inspection
of the records in the office of the register of deeds may only be
made by those having special interest therein and subject to such
reasonable regulations as prescribed by the Chief of the Land
Registration Office, and that the Sec. of Justice has ruled to
safeguard public interest not to disclose the records for publication
● Subido contends that it is grounded upon the freedom of the press.
Issue: W/n Subido or his representatives can examine the records in the land
registry?
Ruling:
● The court granted the petition and allowed Subido or his
representatives to examine the records of sale of real estate
properties to aliens subject to restrictions made by law.
● The right of inspection of title records is a subject of express
statutory regulation in the Philippines. Section 56 of Act No. 496,
as amended by Act No. 3300 where it stated that records relating to
the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public subject to such
reasonable regulations by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office with the approval of the Secretary of Justice
● The regulations which the Register of Deeds, or the Chief of the
General Land Registration Office, or the Secretary of Justice is
empowered to promulgate are confined to prescribing the manner
and hours of examination, to the end that damage or loss of the
records may be avoided.
● The Court stated that it is not the duty of the registration officers to
concern themselves the motive of the person seeking access to the
records except when it is clear that the purpose of the examination
is unlawful
● If it be wrong to publish the contents of the records, it is the
legislature and not the officials having custody thereof which is
called upon to devise a remedy.
Doctrine: Except when it is clear that the purpose of the inspection is
unlawful, it is not the duty of the registration officers to concern themselves
with the motives, purposes, and objects of the person seeking to inspect the
records. The Records of the Register of deeds are open to the public subject
to regulations made by law.
Doctrine: When it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful,
or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not believe it is the duty under the law of
registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons, and
objects of the person seeking access to the records. It is not their prerogative
to see that the information which the records contain is not flaunted before
public gaze, or that scandal is not made of it. If it be wrong to publish the
contents of the records, it is the legislature and not the officials having
custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy. As to the moral or
material injury which the publication might inflict on other parties, that is
the publisher's responsibility and lookout. The publication is made subject
to the consequences of the law.