Calma v.

Pleasantville
Archibald Jose T.
Manansala

Facts
The

spouses Restituto and Pilar Calma

have been residents of Pleasantvilles
subdivision City Heights Phase II since
1976. Later, the spouses Fabian and
Nenita Ong purchased a lot fronting that
of the Calmas sometime in 1979-1980,
where they built buildings as their
residence and place of business.

Facts (continued)

On 25 April 1981, Calma wrote the

president of the Association of Residents
of City Heights, Inc. complaining that the
compound of the Ongs was being utilized
as a lumber yard and that a "loathsome
noise and nervous developing sound"
emanating therefrom disturbed him and
his family and caused them and their son
to suffer nervous tension and illness.

Facts

The Associations President replied that they had

referred his complaint to Fabian Ong who had
already taken immediate action by ordering the
transfer of the lumber cutting machine and by
instructing his laborers not to do any carpentry or
foundry works in the early morning or afternoon and
in the evening. However, Mr. Calma was unsatisfied
with the measures taken by the association and
Fabian Ong. He wrote Pleasantville on 17 June 1981
and asked them abate the nuisance emanating from
the compound of the Ongs.

Facts

However, Pleasantville did not reply on the Calmas

request. Thus, on July 28, 1981, they filed a
complaint for damages against the Ongs and
Pleasantville at Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental (Civil Case No. 16113) alleging that that if
Pleasantville was not negligent in selling the lot to
the Ongs and it did not fail to have the alleged illegal
constructions by the Ongs demolished (which
violated the contractual provision that the land shall
be used only for residential purposes), the nuisance
could not have existed and he and his family would
not have sustained damage caused by it.

Facts
On

31 August 1981, Restituto Calma

also filed with the National Housing
Authority (NHA) a complaint for
"Violation of the Provisions, Rules and
Regulations of the Subdivision and
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree
under Presidential Decree No. 957,"
claiming almost the same issue in the
civil case.

Facts
He

also prayed that PLEASANTVILLE be

ordered to abate the nuisance and/or
demolish the offending structures,
refund the amortization payments made
on their lot, and to provide them and
their son with medication until their
recovery. He also prayed that
PLEASANTVILLE be penalized under Sec.
39 of P.D. No. 957 and that its license be
revoked.

Issues
1st

Issue: Whether structures in the

property of the Ongs constituted a
nuisance?
2nd Issue: Whether the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission
was valid in ordering Pleasantville to
take measures in prevention and
abatement of the nuisance?

Legal Provisions

Sec. 39 of PD 957 - Penalties. Any person who shall

violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any
rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this
Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of
not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos
and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years:
Provided, That in the case of corporations, partnership,
cooperatives, or associations, the President, Manager
or Administrator or the person who has charge of the
administration of the business shall be criminally
responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or the
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

Held

The Supreme Court affirm the Court of

Appeals finding, that HSRCs 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 admits in his comment
before Court of Appeals that the
Commissions decision did not have
finding of nuisance.

Held
Apparently,

on the basis of position

papers, the said Commission assumed
the existence of the nuisance without
receiving evidence on the matter, to
support its order to have the alleged
nuisance abated or be given preventive
actions.