INVERSE CONDEMNATION

EMINENT DOMAIN. Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution provides a substantive

guarantee that private property that is taken by the state for public use should be paid for with
just compensation. If the state does not agree with the property owner on a price, the state,
through the competent government agency, should file the proper expropriation action under
Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In case of a taking without the proper expropriation action filed, the property owner may file its
own action to question the propriety of the taking or to compel the payment of just
compensation. Among these inverse condemnation actions is a complaint for payment of just
compensation and damages. (NPC v. Sps. Asoque, G.R. 172507, September 14, 2016)
INVERSE CONDEMNATION. Inverse condemnation has the objective to recover the value of
property taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the
power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. (NPC v. Heirs of
Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011) Just compensation is the fair value of
the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, fixed at the time of the
actual taking by the government. This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing
of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for
compensation. The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal
criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner. In
determining just compensation, all the facts as to the condition of the property and its
surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered. (EPZA v. Dulay, G.R.
No. 59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305; NPC v. Dr. Antero Bongbong, et al., G.R. No.
164079, April 3, 2007).
HOW TO INSTITUTE; JURISDICTION. The final determination of just compensation in
eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the Regional
Trial Courts (RTC) and not with administrative agencies. The action to file the judicial
determination of just compensation shall be ten (10) years from the time of taking, provided that
at the time of the filing of judicial determination, there should be no pending administrative
action for the determination of just compensation. (LBP v. Dalauta, G.R. No. 190004, August 08,
2017)
In NPC v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, the respondents, as the owners of the land sued NPC
in the RTC for the recovery of damages and of the property, with alternative prayer for the
payment of just compensation upon belatedly discovered that one of the underground tunnels of
NPC traversed their land.
NUISANCE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE DEFINED. 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 unequal. A
private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.
NUISANCES IN RELATION TO THEIR LEGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SUMMARY
ABATEMENT; NUISANCE PER SE; NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS.
A nuisance per se is one which "affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be
summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity. While a nuisance per accidens 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. (Natividad C. Cruz, et al. vs. Pandacan Hiker’s
Club, Inc., GR 188213, Jan. 11, 2016)
It is a standing jurisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be
summarily abated. In Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. Jac Liner, Inc., the Court, citing
other cases on the matter, emphasized the need for judicial intervention when the nuisance is not
a nuisance per se.
PERSONS LIABLE FOR DAMAGERS RESULTING FROM NUISANCE. As a general
rule, one who creates a nuisance is liable for the resulting damages, and ordinarily his liability
continues as long as the nuisance continues. Generally, all who participate in the creation or
maintenance of a nuisance are liable for injuries suffered therefrom by others. One who adopts
and continues previously existing nuisance also becomes liable for its continued maintenance,
and if one person creates a nuisance and another adopts it, continues it, and keeps it up, both are
liable. But the mere failure to abate a nuisance created by another does not alone constitute a
continuation thereof; there must be some positive participation in the continuance of the nuisance
or some positive act evidencing its adoption. It has been said that it is the occupant, and not the
owner, to whom the liability for damage caused by a nuisance generally and prima facie attaches,
and that the duty of the owner of property to abate the nuisance thereon created by his
predecessor in title arises from ownership, but the real basis of liability is the wrongful act
creating or continuing the nuisance rather than the ownership or occupancy of the premises; and
the bare fact of ownership or of occupancy imposes no responsibility. Hence, if the owner or
occupant of the property creates a nuisance thereon, or continues a nuisance created thereon by
others, he is liable not because he owns or occupies the premises, but because he created the
nuisance or failed to abate it. (Sangco, 1994)
REMEDIES AGAINST PUBLIC NUISANCES. 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.

ABATEMENT, WITHOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. The summary abatement of

nuisance without judicial proceedings exists in the absence of statue, and is recognized and
established as a principle of common law on the ground that the requirement of preliminary
formal legal proceedings and a judicial trial would result in defeating the beneficial objects
sought to be obtained.
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE WITHOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Subject
to limitations, the right may be exercised by public officers and by private individuals.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES MAY EXERCISED THE RIGHT TO ABATE PUBLIC
NUISANCE WITHOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. In the exercise of the police power,
the State may authorize its officers to summarily abate public nuisances without resort to legal
proceedings and without notice or hearing. Public authorities may take such actions as are
reasonably necessary to abate a public nuisance and for the purpose an officer may, where
authorized by the statute, enter upon the lands and premises of the party guilty of maintain the
nuisance, provided that he can do so in peaceable manner, and remove and abate the nuisance. In
proper circumstances, the offending property may be destroyed. The district health officer shall
determine whether or not abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a
public nuisance. (Art. 702., NCC)
PRIVATE PERSON MAY EXERCISED THE RIGHT TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE
WITHOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Any private person may abate a public nuisance
which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But
it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to
abate the nuisance; (2) That such demand has been rejected; (3) That the abatement be approved
by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and (4) That the
value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. (Art. 704.)

WHO MAY EXERCISED ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE WITHOUT

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by
removing, or if necessary by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without
committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that
the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.

In Rana v. Wong, the Court explained that aside from the remedy of summary abatement which
should be taken under the parameters stated in Articles 70454 (for public nuisances) and 70655
(for private nuisances) of the Civil Code, a private person whose property right was invaded or
unreasonably interfered with by the act, omission, establishment, business or condition of the
property of another may file a civil action to recover personal damages.56 Abatement may be
judicially sought through a civil action therefor57 if the pertinent requirements under the Civil
Code for summary abatement, or the requisite that the nuisance is a nuisance per se, do not
concur. To note, the remedies of abatement and damages are cumulative; hence, both may be
demanded. (Rana v. Wong and Sps. Ong, G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014)