Title 8 – Nuisance

Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145

Article 694 of the Civil Code defines “nuisance” as any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition or property, or anything else that (1) injures or endangers the health
or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards
decency or morality; (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.
In establishing a no build zone through local legislation, the Local Government Unit
(LGU) effectively made a determination that constructions therein, without first securing
exemptions from the local council, qualify as nuisances for they pose a threat to public
safety.
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.
In the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause, property rights of
individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of
the government.

Rana vs. Wong, 727 SCRA 539, 30 June 2014

Aside from the remedy of summary abatement which should be taken under the
parameters stated in Articles 704 (for public nuisances) and 706 (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.
Settled is the rule that in order that an action for the recovery of property may prosper,
the party prosecuting the same need only prove the identity of the thing and his
ownership thereof.

Cruz vs. Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc., 778 SCRA 385

Other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the term “nuisance” is
so comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with
the rights of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his
comfort.
A nuisance is classified in two ways: (1) according to the object it affects; or (2)
according to its susceptibility to summary abatement. As for a nuisance classified
according to the object or objects that it affects, a nuisance may either be: (a) a public
nuisance, i.e., one which “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”; or (b) a private nuisance, or one “that is not included in the
foregoing definition” which, in jurisprudence, is one which “violates only private rights
and produces damages to but one or a few persons.” A nuisance may also be classified
as to whether it is susceptible to a legal summary abatement, in which case, it may
either be: (a) a nuisance per se, when it affects the immediate safety of persons and
property, which may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity; or (b) a
nuisance per accidens, 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”;
In other words, it requires a proper appreciation of evidence before a court or tribunal
rules that the property being maintained is a nuisance per accidens.

Book III – Title III Donation

Liguez vs. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil. 577
Under Article 1274, of the Civil Code of 1889, liberality of the donor is
deemed causa only in those contracts that are of "pure" beneficence; that is to say,
contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the welfare of the beneficiary,
without any intent of producing any satisfaction for the donor.
The right of the husband to donate community property is strictly limited by law.
However, the donation made in contravention of the law is not void in its entirety, but
only in so far as it prejudices the interest of the wife. The rule applies whether the
donation is gratuitous or for a consideration.

De Luna vs. Abrigo, 181 SCRA 150

Article 764 of the New Civil Code does not apply to onerous donations in view of the
specific provision of Article 733 providing that onerous donations are governed by the
rules on Contracts.
The stipulation under paragraph 11 of the Revival of Donation Intervivos not being
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is valid and binding
upon the foundation who voluntarily consented thereto.
Nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from entering into an agreement that
violation of the terms of the contract would cause cancellation thereof even without
court intervention.

Heirs of Cesario Velasquez vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 552

An action for partition will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest over the subject
property.
A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title over
the property from the donor to the donee and the donation is perfected from the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. And once a donation is
accepted, the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property donated.

Imperial vs. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 393

The Civil Code specifies the following instances of reduction or revocation of donations:
(1) four years, in cases of subsequent birth, appearance, recognition or adoption of a
child; (2) four years, for non-compliance with conditions of the donation; and (3) at any
time during the lifetime of the donor and his relatives entitled to support, for failure of the
donor to reserve property for his or their support.
Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon an obligation created by law must be
brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues.

Victoria vs. Pidlaoan, G.R. No. 196470, 20 April 2016

A document is absolutely simulated when the parties have no intent to bind themselves
at all, while it is relatively simulated when the parties concealed their true agreement.

The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima vs. Alzona, G.R. No. 224307, 06
August 2018
In order that a donation of an immovable property be valid, the following elements must
be present: (a) the essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in
the patrimony of the donee; (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi; (d)
the donation must be contained in a public document; and (e) that the acceptance
thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; if acceptance is
made in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified thereof in an authentic form,
to be noted in both instruments.
Article 738, in relation to Article 745, of the Civil Code provides that all those who are
not specifically disqualified by law may accept donations either personally or through an
authorized representative with a special power of attorney for the purpose or with a
general and sufficient power.