TAMIN VS.

CA- Abatement of Public Nuisance

FACTS:
Petitioner municipality represented by its mayor Real filed in the RTC a complaint for the ejectment
of respondents. It is alleged that the municipality owns a parcel of residential land located in
Zamboanga del Sur and the said parcel of land was reserved for public plaza under PD 365 and that
during the mayor, the municipality leased the area to the defendants subject to the condition that
they should vacate the place in case it is needed for public purposes and the defendants paid the
rentals religiously until 1967. They refused to vacate the said land despite the efforts of the
government since money is allocated for the construction of a municipal gymnasium within the
public plaza and such construction could not continue because of the presence of the buildings
constructed by the defendants.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipality has a cause of action for the abatement of public nuisance under
Article 694 of the Civil Code.

Held:
Yes based on the definition of a nuisance provided for in the CC which states that “Art. 694. A
nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property or anything else
which: … hinders or impairs the use of the property.”
Article 695. Nuisance is either public or private. 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 equal.”

Article 699 provides for the following remedies against public nuisance:

1. A prosecution under the penal code or any local ordinance

2. civil action
3. abatement without judicial proceedings In the present case, the municipality chose to file a civil
action for the recovery of possession of the parcel of land occupied by the PR. Under the Local
Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan has to first pass an ordinance before summarily abate a
public nuisance.

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.