Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ART. 694
Article 699 provides for the following remedies against public nuisance:
Facts:
The complaint alleged that the petitioner is the owner of a parcel of
residential land located at Poblacion, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur with an
area of 5,894 square meters more or less; that the parcel of land was
reserved for public plaza under Presidential Proclamation No. 365 dated
March 15, 1968; that during the incumbency of the late Mayor Isidoro E.
Real, Sr. or in 1958, the municipality leased an Area of 1,350 square meters
to the defendants (respondents herein) subject to the condition that they
should vacate the place in case it is needed for public purposes; that the
defendants religiously paid the rentals until 1967; that thereafter, the
defendants refused to pay the rentals; that the incumbent mayor discovered
that the defendants filed a "Cadastral Answer" over said lot; that the
Considering the facts in the complaint is true then the writ of possession and
writ of demolition would have been justified. A writ of demolition would have
been sufficient to eject the private respondent.
A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and constructions thereon
can be abated summarily by the municipality. We ruled in the case
of Villanueva v. Castaeda, Jr. (154 SCRA 142 [1987]):
Exactly in point is Espiritu v. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, (102 Phil. 869870) where the Supreme Court declared:
There is absolutely no question that the town plaza cannot be used for the
construction of market stalls, specially of residences, and that such
structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. Town
plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to
be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce
of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to
private parties.
Applying this well-settled doctrine, we rule that petitioners had no right in the
first place to occupy the disputed premises and cannot insist in remaining
there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts. They should have
realized and accepted this earlier, considering that even before Civil Case
No. 2040 was decided, the municipal council of San Fernando had already
adopted Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, declaring this area as the parking
place and public plaza of the municipality.
Held: No.
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as follows:
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition
of property or anything else which:
If, therefore, the allegations in the complaint are true and that the parcel of
land being occupied by the private respondents is indeed a public plaza,
then the writ of possession and writ of demolition would have been justified.
In fact, under such circumstances, there would have been no need for a writ
of possession in favor of the petitioner municipality since the private
respondents' occupation over the subject parcel of land can not be
recognized by any law. A writ of demolition would have been sufficient to
eject the private respondents.
However, we have to consider the fact that the cadastral proceedings will
ultimately settle the real owner/s of the disputed parcel of land. In case
respondent Vicente Medina is adjudged the real owner of the parcel of land,
then the writ of possession and writ of demolition would necessarily be null
and void. Not only that. The demolition of the constructions in the parcel of
land would prove truly unjust to the private respondents.
Applying these criteria, we agree with the petitioners that the complaint
alleges factual circumstances of a complaint for abatement of public
nuisance.
NUISANCE
CFI of Camarines Norte, in its decision in Civil Case No. 2257, declared said
barbershop as a nuisance per-se2. But even without this judicial
pronouncement, petitioner could not have been faulted for having fenced off
said barbershop. Paragraph 3, Article 6993 of the Civil Code authorizes the
abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings. In the case at
bar, petitioner as mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaid
recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good
faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability.
ART. 699
JOSE "PEPITO" TIMONER, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IV
DIVISION, respondents.
G.R. No. L-62050 November 25, 1983, ESCOLIN, J. SECOND DIVISION
Facts
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
Issue
The CA, and the CFI of Laguna, took the view ruled that petitioner
maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks), and neglected to adopt the
necessary precautions to avoid accidents to persons entering its premises.
Both the CA and CFI applied the doctrine of attractive nuisance, of American
origin (Taylor vs. Manila Electric) which states that the one who maintains
on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting
thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even
Held
Yes, Grave coercion is committed when "a person who, without
authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will,
either it be right or wrong." The three elements of grave coercion are: (1) that
any person be prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by
law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; (2)
that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material
force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will
of the offended party, and (3) that the person who restrained the will and
liberty of another had no right to do so, or, in other words, that the restraint
was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right.
2 In holding that the stalls are nuisances per se the lower court in Civil case no. 2257 reasoned
that there is no semblance of any legality or right that exists in favor of the defendants to build a
stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk, especially in a highway where it does not only
constitute a menace to the health of the general public passing through the street and also of the
unsanitary condition that is bred therein as well as the unsightly and ugly structures in the said
place. Moreover, even if it is claimed and pretended that there was a license, permit or toleration of
the defendants' makeshift store and living quarters for a number of years does not lend legality to
an act which is a nuisance per se. Such nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons and the general public which posed a danger to the people in
general passing and using that place, for in addition, this is an annoyance to the public by the
invasion of its rights the fact that it is in a public place and annoying to all who come within its
sphere.
1 Petitioner also filed a complaint in the CFI of Camarines Norte against Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos
3 ART. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are: . (3) Abatement, without judicial
and others for judicial abatement of their stalls. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 2257,
alleged that these stalls constituted public nuisances as well as nuisances per se.
proceedings.
NUISANCE
credit card slip at the payment and verification counter when she felt a
sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. She looked behind her. She then
beheld her daughter ZHIENETH on the floor, her young body pinned by the
bulk of the stores gift-wrapping counter/structure. ZHIENETH was crying and
screaming for help. Although shocked, CRISELDA was quick to ask the
assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and retrieving
ZHIENETH from the floor. ZHIENETH was quickly rushed to the Makati
Medical Center where she was operated on. She died fourteen (14) days
after the accident.
RULING: NO.
The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable
to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some
unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its
location.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive nuisance
doctrine has not been held not to be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools
of water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts, drains, cesspools or
sewer pools, . . .
Issue: Can the respondents be held liable for their unstable counter?
Held: Yes.
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."
Therefore, as petitioner's tanks are not classified as attractive
nuisance, the question whether the petitioner had taken reasonable
precautions becomes immaterial.
In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, CRISELDA and ZHIENETH were at the 2nd
floor of Syvels Department Store, Makati City. CRISELDA was signing her