G.R. No.

192861 June 30, 2014

LINDA RANA, Petitioner, vs.

TERESITA LEE WONG, SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG and RUBEN ANG ONG, represented by their
Attorney-in-fact WILSON UY, and SPS. ROSARIO and.WILSON UY, Respondents.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of petitioner constitute a nuisance per se.

RULING:

Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance is defined as "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, defies 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." Based on case law, however, the term "nuisance" is deemed to be "so
comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the
citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort." 48

Jurisprudence classifies nuisances in relation to their legal susceptibility to summary abatement (that is,
corrective action without prior judicial permission). In this regard, a nuisance may either be: (a) a nuisance
per se(or one which "affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated
under the undefined law of necessity");50 or (b) a nuisance per accidens(or that which "depends upon
certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated
without due hearing thereon ina tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute
a nuisance.")51

It is a standing jurisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily
abated.

In the present cases, Wong, et al. availed of the remedy of judicial abatement and damages against
Sps.Rana, claiming that both the elevated and cemented subject portionand the subject backfilling are
"nuisances" caused/created by the latter which curtailed their use and enjoyment of their properties.

With respect to the elevated and cemented subject portion, the Court finds that the same is not a
nuisance per se. By its nature, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the community. It was built
primarily to facilitate the ingress and egress of Sps. Rana from their house which was admittedly located
on a higher elevation than the subject road and the adjoining Uy and Wong-Ong properties. Since the
subject portion is not a nuisance per se it cannot be summarily abated. As such, Wong, et al.’s demolition
of Sps. Rana’s subject portion, which was not sanctioned under the RTC’s November 27, 1997
Order,remains unwarranted. Resultantly, damages ought to be awarded in favor of Sps. Rana particularly
that of (a) nominal damages59 – for the vindication and recognition of Sps. Rana’s right to be heard before
the court prior to Wong, et al.’sabatement of the subject portion (erroneously perceived as a nuisance per
se) – and (b) temperate damages60 – for the pecuniary loss owing to the demolition of the subject portion,
which had been established albeit uncertain as to the actual amount of loss.
Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City and MMDA – July 18, 2006 (G.R. No. 177807) MMDA
vs. Gancayco – May 10 2007 (G.R. No. 177933)

FACTS:

The consolidated petitions of Retired Justice Emilio Gancayco, City Government of Quezon City and the
Metro Manila Development Authority stemmed from a local ordinance pertaining to Construction of
Arcades, and the clearing of Public Obstructions. Gaycanco owns a property, of which he was able to
obtain a building permit for a two-storey commercial building, which was situated along EDSA, in an area
which was designated as part of a Business/Commercial Zone by the Quezon City Council. The Quezon
City Council also issued Ordinance No. 2904, which orders the construction of Arcades for Commercial
Buildings. The ordinance was amended to not require the properties located at the Quezon City - San
Juan boundary, and commercial buildings from Balete - Seattle Street to construct the arcades, moreover,
Gancayco had been successful in his petition to have his property, already covered by the amended
ordinance, exempted from the ordinance. MMDA on April 28, 2003, sent a notice to Gancayco, under
Ordinance no. 2904, part of his property had to be demolished, if he did not clear that part within 15 days,
which Gancayco did not comply with, and so the MMDA had to demolish the party wall, or “wing walls.”
Gancayco then filed a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of
Quezon City, seeking to prohibit the demolition of his property, without due process and just
compensation, claiming that Ordinance no. 2904 was discriminatory and selective. He sought the
declaration of nullity of the ordinance and payment for damages. MMDA contended that Gancayco cannot
seek nullification of an ordinance that he already violated, and that the ordinance had the presumption of
constitutionality, and it was approved by the Quezon City Council, taking to note that the Mayor signed
the ordinance. The RTC, however, declared that the Ordinance was unconstitutional, invalid and void ab
initio. MMDA appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the CA partly granted the appeal, with the contention
that the ordinance was to be modified; it was constitutional because the intention of the ordinance was to
uplift the standard of living, and business in the commercial area, as well as to protect the welfare of the
general public passing by the area, however the injunction against the enforcement and implementation
of the ordinance is lifted. With that decision, the MMDA and Gancayco filed Motions for Reconsideration,
which the CA denied, as both parties have no new issues raised. Therefore they petitioned to the Court.

ISSUES: Whether or not the wing wall of Gancayco’s property can be constituted as a public nuisance.

HELD: The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court decided that the wing wall of
Gancayco’s building was not a nuisance per se, as under Art. 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
nuisance is defined as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition or property, or anything else
that (1) injures of endangers the health or safety of the others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3)
shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstruct 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. A nuisance
may be a nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per se are those which affect the
immediate safety of persons and property and may summarily be abated under the undefined law of
necessity. As Gaycanco was able to procure a building permit to construct the building, it was implied that
the city engineer did not consider the building as such of a public nuisance, or a threat to the safety of
persons and property. The MMDA was only to enforce Authoritative power on development of Metro
Manila, and was not supposed to act with Police Power as they were not given the authority to do such by
the constitution, nor was it expressed by the DPWH when the ordinance was enacted. Therefore, MMDA
acted on its own when it illegally demolished Gancayco’s property, and was solely liable for the damage.