Title VIII

NUISANCE
(Arts. 694-707)

1. Define nuisance.
ANS: A nuisance is 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. (Art. 694, NCC.)

2. Classify nuisances. Define each of them.

ANS: Nuisances may be classified as follows:
(1) As to nature, nuisances may be classified as nuisance
per se and nuisance per accidens. Nuisance per se is that which is
a nuisance at all times and under any circumstance, regardless of
location and surroundings. Nuisance per accidens is that which
maybe considered a nuisance by reason of circumstances, location or
surroundings.
(2) As to injurious effect, nuisances may be classified as
public nuisance and private nuisance. 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. A private nuisance, on the other hand,
affects only a person or small number of persons. (Art. 695, NCC.)

437
Arts. 694-707 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
Nuisance

3. Distinguish between a public and a private nui­

sance.
ANS: The two (2) may be distinguished from each other in the
following ways:
(1) A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood
or any considerable number of persons, whereas a private nuisance
affects only a person or small number of persons; and
(2) The remedies against a public nuisance are criminal
prosecution, civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings,
whereas the remedies against a private nuisance are civil action and
abatement without judicial proceedings.

4. What are the remedies against a public nuisance?

ANS: The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance;
or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. (Art 699,
NCC.)

5. What are the remedies against a private nuisance?

ANS: The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action; or
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. (Art. 705, NCC.)

6. A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow

where they sell shabu and other prohibited drugs. When the
police found the illegal trade, they immediately demolished
the house because according to them, it was a nuisance per
se that should be abated. Can this demolition be sustained?
Explain. (2006)
ANS: No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is not
a nuisance per se or at law as it is not an act, occupation, or structure

438
 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS Arts. 694-707
Nuisance

which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, re­

gardless of location or surroundings. A nuisance per se is a nuisance
in and of itself, without regard to circumstances [ Tolentino, p. 695,
citing Wheeler vs. River Falls Power Co., 215 Ala. 655, 111 So. 907].
(Suggested Answers to the 2006 Bar Examination Questions, PALS)

7. From the Meralco’s substation in Quezon City ema­

nates an unceasing sound, which, according to Dr. Velasco,
who is residing in the adjoining lot, disturbed his concentra­
tion and sleep, impaired his health and lowered the value of
his property. Wherefore, he brought an action against the
Meralco for abatement of the nuisance and for damages. He
based the action on Arts. 694, Nos. 1 and 2, and 2202 of the
NCC. Quantitative intensity measurements made show that
normal sound levels in the locality range from 40 to 50 deci­
bels, while in the areas immediately adjoining the substa­
tion, they range from 66 to 76 decibels. Will the action pros­
per? Reasons. (1977,1980)
ANS: Actually, the above problem is based on Velasco vs.
Manila Electric Co., 40 SCRA 342. According to the SC, the action
will prosper. Our law on nuisance is of American origin, and a
review of authorities clearly indicates the rule to be that the causing
or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound may constitute an
actionable nuisance. However, it must be a noise which affects
injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to
an unreasonable extent. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar
position or of specially sensitive characteristics will not render the
noise an actionable nuisance. The test, therefore, is whether rights
of property, of health or of comfort are so injuriously affected by the
noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which goes
beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of
living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted
to uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary care
is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity
of property of another owner who though creating a noise is acting
with reasonable regard for the right of those affected by it.
That the normal sound levels in the locality range from 40
to 50 decibels, while those around the substation range from 56 to

439
Arts. 694-707 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
Nuisance

76 decibels, and that the noise is partly a causative factor in the

illnesses of plaintiff, are supported by the evidence presented.
Therefore, defendant is hereby ordered to take appropriate
measures to reduce its noise at its substation to an average of 40 to
50 decibels and to pay to plaintiff P20,000 damages and P5,000 for
attorney’s fees.

8. What requisites must concur in order that a private

person may summarily abate a nuisance? (1970)
ANS: Whether public or private, the following requisites
must concur in order that a private person may summarily abate a
nuisance:
(1) It must be specially injurious to him;
(2) No breach of the peace or unnecessary injury must be
committed;
(3) Demand must first be made upon the owner or possessor
to abate the nuisance;
(4) The demand has been rejected;
(5) The abatement is approved by the district health officer
and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(6) The value of the destruction does not exceed P3,000. (Arts.
704, 706, NCC.)

9. What is the doctrine of “attractive nuisance”?

ANS: The doctrine of attractive nuisance may be stated as
follows: “A person who maintains in his premises a dangerous
instrumentality of a character which is attractive to children of
tender years at play and who fails to exercise due diligence to prevent
such children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser.”

9. Is a swimming pool maintained in one’s premises

an attractive nuisance, making the owner thereof liable for
any injury that may result from it? Reasons.

440
 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS Arts. 694-707
Nuisance

ANS: According to the SC in the case of Hidalgo Enterprises

vs. Balandan (91 Phil. 488), any body of water, artificial as well as
natural, cannot, as a rule, be considered an attractive nuisance, in
the absence of any unusual condition or artificial feature thereof
other than the mere water. This is so because nature has created
streams, lakes and pools. Danger always lurks in such bodies of
water. Children of tender years are aware of that. Consequently,
when the swimming pool is merely a duplication of nature, it cannot
be considered an attractive nuisance. However, if an unusual or
artificial condition or feature will add another danger to children
of tender years, the doctrine of attractive nuisance would then be
applicable.

441
Arts. 694-707 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS
Nuisance

76 decibels, and that the noise is partly a causative factor in the

illnesses of plaintiff, are supported by the evidence presented.
Therefore, defendant is hereby ordered to take appropriate
measures to reduce its noise at its substation to an average of 40 to
50 decibels and to pay to plaintiff P20,000 damages and P5,000 for
attorney’s fees.

8. What requisites must concur in order that a private

person may summarily abate a nuisance? (1970)
ANS: Whether public or private, the following requisites
must concur in order that a private person may summarily abate a
nuisance:
(1) It must be specially injurious to him;
(2) No breach of the peace or unnecessary injury must be
committed;
(3) Demand must first be made upon the owner or possessor
to abate the nuisance;
(4) The demand has been rejected;
(5) The abatement is approved by the district health officer
and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
(6) The value of the destruction does not exceed P3,000. (Arts.
704, 706, NCC.)

9. What is the doctrine of “attractive nuisance”?

ANS: The doctrine of attractive nuisance may be stated as
follows: “A person who maintains in his premises a dangerous
instrumentality of a character which is attractive to children of
tender years at play and who fails to exercise due diligence to prevent
such children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser.”

9. Is a swimming pool maintained in one’s premises

an attractive nuisance, making the owner thereof liable for
any injury that may result from it? Reasons.

440
 PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS Arts. 694-707
Nuisance

ANS: According to the SC in the case of Hidalgo Enterprises

vs. Balandan (91 Phil. 488), any body of water, artificial as well as
natural, cannot, as a rule, be considered an attractive nuisance, in
the absence of any unusual condition or artificial feature thereof
other than the mere water. This is so because nature has created
streams, lakes and pools. Danger always lurks in such bodies of
water. Children of tender years are aware of that. Consequently,
when the swimming pool is merely a duplication of nature, it cannot
be considered an attractive nuisance. However, if an unusual or
artificial condition or feature will add another danger to children
of tender years, the doctrine of attractive nuisance would then be
applicable.

441