Nuisance: What is a nuisance? It is anything or anything act condition, business, establishment which: 1.

Injures or threatens the health or safety of others 2. Annoy or offends the senses 3. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality 4. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public street or body of water or 5. Hinders or impairs the use of property Noise can obviously be a nuisance A thing which offends or annoys the sense is categorically a nuisance A huge billboard which portrays a naked woman in all her glory may be something which will qualify as a nuisance, something which defies decency or morality. A house of prostitution. When it comes to noise, obviously noise will irritate most people in determining whether a particular noise would justify the award of damages to a property owner who happens to reside to the vicinity, you remember that the test is not whether that kind of noise will irritate a person of sensitive nature. According to the SC: We have to pay for certain things if we have to live in urban communities. If you reside in Manila there is bound to be a certain amount of noise. Case: Velasco vs. Manila Electric Company:

Facts: Dr. Velasco was constantly irritated by a certain kind of noise emanating from a Meralco sub-station which happen to be located near his property and so he sued for damages. SC: In determining if whether there is a justification for the award of damages what we should consider is the standard based on an ordinary person of ordinary sensibilities. Not what would be irritating to somebody who is so sensitive because noise is something to accept as a part of daily living in an urban setting. At any rate in that case studies were conducted even experts were conducted and it was established that the amount of noise emanating from the Meralco sub station is really higher that the ambient noise in that neighborhood so it justifies the amount of the award of damages to doctor Velasco. It was also in this case where the Supreme court said: The provisions in the civil code on extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated the value of the currency at the time of the constitution of the obligation shall be used as a basis for fixing the amount to be paid. This provision cannot be used if the obligation does not arise from contract. Why? Because the provision states that currency stipulated. So in this case it arises from quasi-delict there is no basis for applying that provision. In other words you cannot ask for the adjustment of the award of damages even assuming that it took so many years before the case could be finally decided by the court kase you will apply that provision only if there is a currency stipulated. And you can only have a

currency stipulated if there is a contract between the parties. *If you construct a part of your house and it encroaches upon a public street thats a nuisance because it obstruct the free passage of that public street. A nuisance may either be: 1. Public nuisance 2. Private nuisance Q. When would it be public? When would it be private? A. It would be public if it affects either the entire community or a considerable number of persons. It would be private nuisance if it does not affect the public at large or it does not affect a considerable number of persons. Doctrine of attractive nuisance: If you are the owner of the property and on that property you maintain a dangerous thing or equipment which is liable to attract children. And you dont take necessary precautions to prevent children specially those of tender years from getting injured you are liable for damages if a child is injured by your appliance even if technically speaking the child is a trespasser. Ex: You have in your yard a huge industrial Fan. Hidalgo Enterprise: A swimming pool is not an attractive nuisance because a swimming pool is simply an imitation of nature. So the owner would be liable if there are no guards from the premises if a child of a tended year should drown on the swimming pool the owner of the swimming pool will not be liable.

Classification of Nuisance: 1. Nuisance per se A nuisance which is a nuisance in any other circumstances (kahit saan mo ilagay, nuisance yan) Example: House of prostitution Pero pag massage parlor even conceding with all the evil connotations which comes with massage parlors or even if it is a motel its merely a nuisance per accidens. 2. Nuisace per accidens It becomes a nuisance depending on the location or the circumstances. Patis Factory or leather tanning factory. Mere lapse of time does not legalize any nuisance: It does not matter that nuisance has been going on for many years in does not become legal simply because it had existed for many years. Remedies against a public nuisance and Private nuisance: Public nuisance: First: There may be a prosecution under the revise penal code 2nd: There may be a civil action for damages 3rd: There may be abatement without judicial proceedings. Abatement without judicial proceedings: This remedy, is available on if it is a nuisance per se. It is not available on nuisance per accidens. For example:

In one case a local government unit tried to by means of resolution order the transfer a gas station from its present location to somewhere else. The court said, that cannot be done because summary abatement or abatement without judicial proceedings is permitted only if it is a nuisance per se not a nuisance per accidens. And obviously a gas station can only be a nuisance if it is situated in a place where it should not be. It is not nuisance per se. Another case: The local government tried to order the transfer of a bus and jeepney terminal from its present location. The court said: that cannot be done without proper judicial proceedings. Abatement without judicials proceedings is allowed only if it is a nuisance per se. Another case: The city of Manila tried to limit motels, bars, sauna and massage parlors in the Ermita district. Again the court said that cannot be done without proper hearing because abatement without judicial proceedings is available only in nuisance per se. Q. Who takes charge in the abatement of public nuisance? A. District held office will determine, will make sure that one of the remedies available against a public nuisance are availed of. In a case of a civil action: That should be commenced by the city mayor. A private individual is permitted by law the right to file an action for the abatement or damages

based on a public nuisance if it is specially injurious to him. With respect to abatement of a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him there are certain requisites which must be complied: 1. There must first be a demand made upon the owner of the property or lawful possessor of the property in which the nuisance exist 2. The demand must have been rejected. 3. The abatement must also be approved by the district health officer and it must be actually executed with the assistance of the local police. 4. The value of the destruction must not exceed 3k DIFFERENT MODES ON ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP: Difference between mode and title: Mode is that by itself is sufficient to transfer and convey ownership or for the acquisition of the ownership Title simply provides for the reason, the juridical justification of a mode. If I sell to you my car, Title is : The contract o sale But what would effectively convey or transfer ownership to you is not the contract of sale but rather the delivery of the car. Unless and until there has been no delivery ownership would not be transferred and conveyed. Remember the various modes of acquiring ownership:

1. Prescription 2. Law Example: If you are the owner of a parcel of land the fruit tree of your neighbor that falls on the ground. Change of river beds: If the river change its course the abandoned bed ipso facto belongs to the owner of the land which is occupied by the new bed. 3. Occupation Remember: When it comes to occupation this would apply only to movables can be acquired by occupation. Immovable It cannot be acquired by occupation. Q. Why? A. Because one of the requisites of occupation: The property must not have no owner. When it comes to land hindi pede yan. Because of the regalia doctrine. That is why even the law even categorically states in Article 714 that the ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation. 4. Donation 5. Intellectual Creation 6. Tradition or delivery as a consequence of certain contracts 7. Succession whether intestate or testate. *You always need a mode in acquiring ownership without a mode ownership cannot be considered to have vested in a person. There should always be a mode of acquiring ownership.

Akap v. Court of Appeals: May namatay so you Heir executed a document entitled declaration heirship with a waiver of hereditary rights in that document a 3rd person was supposedly given the properties owned by the decedent. Sabi nung heir: ako ang heir I am waiving this hereditary rights in favor to this 3rd person who is not an heir. SC: The ownership of the properties subject of that document did not vest in that person because there is no mode of acquiring ownership. That waiver does not operate to vest ownership in that 3rd person. There must always be a mode of acquiring ownership otherwise ownership cannot be considered vested in a person. Bar exam question: How do you distinguish occupation from possession? 1. In occupation it is essential that the property should not have an owner; 2. Occupation applies only to movables; possession applies to movable or immovable 3. Occupation is a mode of acquiring ownership; possession by itself does not vest ownership. 716: Which speaks about swarms of bees and birds. If you happen to be engaged in the production of honey so meron kang mga bees. If they transfer to the neighboring estate you have the right to pursue them. But you have only 2 days if you do not pursue them for 2 consecutive days then they will

belong to the owner of the land in which they have transferred. Domesticated animals: You have 20 days, if you do not claim this for 20 days they will belong to the one who has caught them. Difference between domesticated animals and domestic animals. Domestic animals cats, dogs. Kung meron kanga so, and if they have been in possession to somebody else for more than 20 days you can still claim them. Unless you have already abandon your dog. Occupation will not be possible because they still have an owner. Special rule for pigeons and fish: If they transfer to another estate provided they have not been lured by some artifice or fraud they will belong to the owner of that other estate. Kung meron kang property tapos dumating ang another Ondoy yung nearby fishpond owner madaming bangus nagbaha ung mga bangus nagpunta dun sa property mo a sayo na praise the lord. (717) The rule of finders keepers: (719-720) If you find movable property which is not a treasure and you know who is the owner or lawful possessor is you are obligated to return it. Rule: You are supposed to return it to the lawful owner or possessor. In this connection you have a provision in the revise penal code Art 308: You are guilty of theft if you do not give the property to the lawful possessor or to the proper authorities. Requirement: 719

You are supposed to deliver it to the local mayor. And then the Mayor is obliged to publish the finding of that movable for 2 consecutive weeks in any way he deems best. Pedeng mag post ng notices sa bulletin board sa munisipyo o sa city hall for 2 consecutive weeks. If the property for such nature it will deteriorate or it would necessitate incurring expenses just to keep it and which would diminish the value the law allows the sale of the property after 8 days from the publication of the notice. Kung ang nakitang property ay isang gallon na ice cream. 6 months from publication thats the period given to the owner to appear and to claim it and if he does not appear for 6 months after the publication then the property would belong to the finder. If the owner however appears, he will have an obligatory reward for 10% of the value of the property. Last point: Rule with respect to letters (723) Who has ownership, the addressee the person to whom this letters are addressed and delivered. But they cannot just be published without the consent of the writer of the letter or his heirs of course the courts may authorize the publication if the sale is necessary for the public good or for the interest of justice. There must be a court authorization, the addressee cannot just publish them. Without his consent or atleast the consent of his heirs.