Reflection on decided cases and Blumm's article on landmark nuisance cases

The cases assigned on module 2 are the following:

1. Republic vs Provincial Government of Palawan
2. Magallona vs Ermita
3. KOR vs DMCI
4. Smart Communications vs Aldecoa
The first two cases talked mainly talked about territorial jurisdiction. In Republic vs
Provincial Government of Palawan, the court ruled on the territorial jurisdiction of
Palawan does not include the Camago-Malampaya reservoir and that its resources
belong to the State and not of the province. In Magallona vs Emita, the court ruled that
the there was no occurrence of delineation of territory but rather a demarcation which
complied with UNCLOS III, in which the Philippines is a signatory of and by which
managed to widen the scope of our territory but not to the detriment of other nations in
compliance with UNCLOS III.
The last two cases involve the topic of nuisance. In KOR vs DMCI, the court ruled that
Torre de Manila is not a nuissance per se or a nuissance per accidens. The DMCI was
able to comply to its permits and requirements. Furthermore, there must be clear
evidence showing that the structure is a nuisance and not based on mere allegations. In
Smart Communications vs Aldecoa, this case falls nuissance per accidens. There being
genuine concern for the health, safety and property of its respondents and the public’s
need for accessible and better mobile phone services, the court demands the case back
to the jurisdiction of the RTC to establish each parties factual claims.
The final piece of reading for this module is Blumm's article on landmark cases on
nuisance. Over the years, nuisance cases have evolved from a simple right to breath
fresh air to cases that potentially affect the harmful effects not just to the people but to
the environment itself. Respondents of nuisance case are also granted equal and fair
claim to judicial process.