You are on page 1of 4


-or otherwise known as common nuisance has been defined as doing of or the failure to
do something that injuriously affects the safety, health, or morals of the public, or works
some substantial annoyance, inconvenience or injury to the public, and as a nuisance
which causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public generally or neglecting to do
a thing which the common good requires.


- it is one which violates only private rights and produces damages to but one or a few
persons. It includes any wrongful act which destroys or deteriorates the property of an
individual or a few persons or interferes with their lawful use or enjoyment thereof.

It is necessary in private nuisance that the plaintiff must suffer some form of damage.
Damage may be proved in one of two ways:

1. By proving physical damage to the property (otherwise known as tangible

nuisance); or

2. By proving personal discomfort in the claimants use of the premises (otherwise

known as intangible nuisance).

To succeed in private nuisance, the claimant must ordinarily show damage to the


Public Nuisance affects the public at large while the latter affects the individual or a
limited number of individuals only. (The difference does not consist in any
difference in the nature or character of the thing itself, but in the extent or
scope of its injurious effect.)

Another difference is in the remedies available. Public nuisances are indictable while
private nuisances are actionable, either for their abatement or for damages, or both.

-also called as nuisance at law; is an act, or, occupation, or structure which is

a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location
or surroundings. (prostitution, gambling)


-are those which become nuisance by reason of circumstances and

surroundings, and an act which may be found to be a nuisance at fact where
the natural tendency of the act is to create danger and inflict injury on
person or property.

[G.R. No. L-8191. February 27, 1956.]

DIOSDADO A. SITCHON, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO
AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of
Manila, Respondent-Appellee.
The police power of the state justifies the abatement or destruction, by
summary proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public
nuisance; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand the legislature may authorize the
summary abatement of a nuisance without judicial process or proceeding.
cralaw The remedy of summary abatement for violation of a municipal
ordinance may be used against a public nuisance. (66 C.J.S. 855, 856.)
When necessary to insure the public safety, the legislature may under its
police power authorize municipal authorities summarily to destroy property
without legal process or previous notice to the owner.
cralaw It is not an objection to the validity of a police regulation that it does
not provide for a hearing or for notice to the owner before his property is
subjected to restraint or destruction. (12 Am. Jur. 356, 357.)
In the exercise of the police power the state may authorize its officers
summarily to abate public nuisances without resort to legal proceedings
and without notice or a hearing.
Municipal Corporations generally have power to cause the abatement of
public nuisances summarily without resort to legal proceedings. (39 Am.
Jur. 455, 456, 457.)
Whether the nuisance is public or private, the following
remedies are available:

1. A civil action; or

2. Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

With regard to the public nuisance, the additional remedy of

criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code or any applicable local ordinance is also available.


Whether a nuisance is a public or private one, it may be abated,

and the abatement may either be without the necessity of
judicial proceedings (nuisance per se) or only upon due hearing
thereon (nuisance per accidens).

In a number of cases, the SC clarified, however, that the

abatement of a nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible
only if it is a nuisance per se.

In Salao v. Santos, the court explained-

Moreover, nuisances are of two kinds: nuisance per se and

nuisance per accidens. The first is recognized as a nuisance under
any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct menace
to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated
summarily under the undefined law of necessity. The second is
that which depends upon certain conditions and
circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact,
it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a
tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in
law constitute a nuisance.
(Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 24
Phil 471). A Smoked Fish Factory is not a nuisance per se; it is a
legitimate industry. The order of the municipal mayor and those
of the health authorities issued with the view to the summary
abatement of what they have concluded, by their own findings, as
a nuisance, are null and void there having been no hearing in
court to the effect.

Thus, a nuisance per accidens cannot be abated without due

hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing does in law constitute a nuisance. And the LGU
concerned does not have the power to summarily abate a
nuisance per accidens in the guise of exercising its police
power through an ordinance. If it does, such ordinance is null
and void because it violates the guarantee of due process under
the constitution.

Whether a nuisance is a public or private one, a civil action for its

abatement or for injunction may be filed. In case of a public
nuisance which is not nuisance per se, in which case the
remedy of summary abatement is not available, the action for its
abatement or injunction should be commenced by the city or
municipal mayor. If the nuisance is a private one, any person
injured by the same may file the action for abatement or for