THE LAW ON EASEMENT OF

RIGHT OF WAY
An Easement has been defined as a privilege to pass over the
land of another, whereby the holder of the easement, called the
Dominant Estate, acquires only a reasonable and usual enjoyment
of the property, and the owner of the land, called the Servient
Estate, retains the benefits and privileges of ownership consistent
with the easement
Simply put, Easement of right of way is an easement or a
privilege by which one person or a particular class of persons is
allowed to pass over another’s land, usually through one
particular path or line.
Easement of Right of Way can be found in Art. 649 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, stating that “The owner, or any person
who, by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any
immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining
to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway,
is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring
estates, after payment of the property indemnity.”
The Supreme Court, in the case of Sps. Bernabe et. al. vs. Sps
Bardilas, et.al (G.R. No. 163157, June 27, 2016), quoted its
decision
rendered in Valdez v. Tabisula, defined Easement or Servitude as
a “real right constituted on another’s property, corporeal, and
immovable, by virtue of which the owner of the same has to
abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do something on
this property for the benefit of another things or person.”
An easement may either be compulsory or not compulsory, the
latter being a situation wherein which the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts.
 
Requisites of compulsory easement of way.
The requisites of compulsory easement of way can be
summarized as follows:
1.     That the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables
and has no adequate outlet to a public highway;
2.     After the payment of property indemnity
3.     That the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the
dominant estate
4.     That the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial
to the servient estate; and in so far as consistent with this rule,
where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
may be the shortest.
It must be reasonable and necessary.
To justify the imposition of this servitude there must be a real,
not fictitious or artificial necessity for it. The servitude must be
such as to meet the requirements of the dominant tenement. The
extent of the right of way must follow and be adapted to the
beneficial use for which the dominant tenement is intended.
 
Adequate outlet to a public highway.
The servient estate can demand from the dominant estate the
right of easement of a right of way in order to gain access to a
public road or highway. When an isolated estate, the dominant
estate, has no access to a public road highway, the owner of such
estate can demand from the surrounding estate or estates, the
servient estate, a passageway to the public highway.
This may be demanded when:
1.      There is absolutely no access to a public highway, and
2.      When even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use,
or is grossly insufficient.
Easement may also be demanded when access to the public
highway is inadequate. However, in the case of Reyes v. Sps.
Valentin and Ramos (G.R. No. 194488, February 11, 2015), the
Supreme Court explained that the convenience of the dominant
estate’s owner is not the basis for granting an easement of right
of way, especially if the owner’s needs may be satisfied without
imposing the easement. Thus, mere convenience for the dominant
estate is not what is required by law as the basis of setting up a
compulsory easement.
The point least prejudicial to the servient estate.
Art. 650 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that in
determining the existence of an easement of right of way, the
requirement of least prejudice to the servient estate “trumps
“distance between the dominant estate and the pubic highway.
It shall be established upon two criteria:
(1) at the point least prejudicial to the servient state; and
(2) where the distance to a public highway may be the shortest.
The Supreme Court had already affirmed the preferred status of
the requirement of “least prejudice” over distance of the
dominant estate to the public highway. If these two (2)
circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which
will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be
the shortest.

The Law On Easement Of Right

Of Way
An Easement has been defined as a privilege to pass over the land of another, whereby the
holder of the easement, called the Dominant Estate, acquires only a reasonable and usual
enjoyment of the property, and the owner of the land, called the Servient Estate, retains the
benefits and privileges of ownership consistent with the easement.

Simply put, Easement of right of way is an easement or a privilege by which one person or a
particular class of persons is allowed to pass over another’s land, usually through one particular
path or line.

Easement of Right of Way can be found in Art. 649 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
stating that “The owner, or any person who, by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use
any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and
without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through
the neighboring estates, after payment of the property indemnity.”
The Supreme Court, in the case of Sps. Bernabe et. al. vs. Sps Bardilas, et.al (G.R. No. 163157,
June 27, 2016), quoted its decision rendered in Valdez v. Tabisula, defined Easement or
Servitude as a “real right constituted on another’s property, corporeal, and immovable, by virtue
of which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do
something on this property for the benefit of another things or person.”

An easement may either be compulsory or not compulsory, the latter being a situation
wherein which the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts.
Requisites of compulsory easement of way.

The requisites of compulsory easement of way can be summarized as follows:

1. That the dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a
public highway;
2. After the payment of property indemnity
3. That the isolation was not due to acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate
4. That the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and in so
far as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
may be the shortest.

It must be reasonable and necessary.

To justify the imposition of this servitude there must be a real, not fictitious or artificial necessity
for it. The servitude must be such as to meet the requirements of the dominant tenement. The
extent of the right of way must follow and be adapted to the beneficial use for which the
dominant tenement is intended.
Adequate outlet to a public highway.

The servient estate can demand from the dominant estate the right of easement of a right of way
in order to gain access to a public road or highway. When an isolated estate, the dominant estate,
has no access to a public road highway, the owner of such estate can demand from the
surrounding estate or estates, the servient estate, a passageway to the public highway.

This may be demanded when:

1. There is absolutely no access to a public highway, and

2. When even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use, or is grossly insufficient.
Easement may also be demanded when access to the public highway is inadequate. However, in
the case of Reyes v. Sps. Valentin and Ramos (G.R. No. 194488, February 11, 2015), the
Supreme Court explained that the convenience of the dominant estate’s owner is not the basis for
granting an easement of right of way, especially if the owner’s needs may be satisfied without
imposing the easement. Thus, mere convenience for the dominant estate is not what is required
by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement.

The point least prejudicial to the servient estate.

Art. 650 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that in determining the existence of an
easement of right of way, the requirement of least prejudice to the servient estate “trumps
“distance between the dominant estate and the pubic highway.

It shall be established upon two criteria:

(1) at the point least prejudicial to the servient state; and

(2) where the distance to a public highway may be the shortest.

The Supreme Court had already affirmed the preferred status of the requirement of “least
prejudice” over distance of the dominant estate to the public highway. If these two (2)
circumstances do not concur in a single tenement, the way which will cause the least damage
should be used, even if it will not be the shortest.

LEGAL EASEMENTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. 634. Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or the
interest of private persons. (549)
LEGAL EASEMENTS DEFINED

> They are the easements imposed by the law, and which have for their object either
public use or the interest of private persons
DIFFERENT LEGAL EASEMENTS

1. Easements relating to waters

2. Right of way
3. Light and view
4. Party wall
5. Drainage of building
6. Intermediate distances
7. Easement against nuisance
8. Lateral and subjacent support

Art. 635. All matters concerning easements established for public or communal use shall
be governed by the special laws and regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence
thereof, by the provisions of this Title. (550)

Art. 636. Easements established by law in the interest of private persons or for private
use shall be governed by the provisions of this Title, without prejudice to the provisions
of general or local  laws and ordinances for the general welfare. These easements may
be modified by agreement of the interested parties, whenever the law does not prohibit
it or no injury is suffered by a third person. (551a)
HOW LEGAL EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE GOVERNED

1. Agreement of the interested parties

2. In default the above, of general or local laws and ordinances for the general welfare
3. In default of the above, the Civil Code
EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS

Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without
the intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth
which they carry with them. The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works
which will impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works
which will increase the burden. (552)
ENUMERATION OF LEGAL EASEMENT RELATING TO WATERS

1. Natural drainage of lands

2. Natural drainage of buildings
3. Easement on riparian banks for navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage
4. Easement of a dam
5. Easement for drawing water or for watering animals
6. Easement of aqueduct
7. Easement for the construction of a stop luck or sluice
WHAT LOWER ESTATES ARE OBLIGED TO RECEIVE

1. Water which naturally and without the intervention of man descends from the higher
estates
2. The stones and earth carried by the waters
DUTIES OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE

> The owner cannot construct works that would impede the easement
DUTIES OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE

1. He cannot make works which will increase the burden

2. But he may construct works preventing erosion
3. If the descending waters are the result of artificial development or proceed from industrial
establishments recently set up, or are the overflow from irrigation dams, the owner of the
lower estate shall be entitled to compensation for his loss or damage
CONTRACT MAY EXTINGUISH LEGAL EASEMENT THERE IS NO NEED FOR INDEMNITY AS LONG AS THERE IS
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS

Art. 638. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private ownership, are
subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three meters along their margins,
to the easement of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing and
salvage.

Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are, furthermore, subject to the
easement of towpath for the exclusive service of river navigation and floatage.  If it be
necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private ownership, the proper indemnity shall
first be paid. (553a)
EASEMENT ALONG RIPARIAN BANKS RIVER BANK, DEFINED

> A bank is a lateral strip of shore washed by the water during high tides but which cannot be
said to be flooded or inundated
THE EASEMENTS ALLOWED

1. On banks of rivers; a public easement for

a. Navigation
b. Floatage
c. Fishing
d. Salvage
2. On banks of navigable or floatable rivers—also the easement of tow path
PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY

1. If the land be of public ownership—no indemnity

2. If the land be of private ownership—indemnity
WIDTH OF ZONE BURDENED

1. Three meters along the river margins, for navigation, floatage,  fishing or salvage
2. Tow path—2 meters if for animals and 1 meter if for pedestrians

Art. 639. Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river or brook, or for the
use of any other continuous or discontinuous stream, it should be necessary to build a
dam, and the person who is to construct it is not the owner of the banks, or lands which
must support it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a dam, after payment of
the proper indemnity. (554)
EASEMENT CONCERNING A DAM

Art. 640. Compulsory easements for drawing water or for watering animals can be
imposed only for reasons of public use in favor of a town or village, after payment of the
proper indemnity. (555)
EASEMENTS FOR DRAWING WATER OR FOR WATERING ANIMALS

1. They can be imposed only for reasons of public use

2. They must be in favor of a town or village
3. Proper indemnity must be paid

Art. 641. Easements for drawing water and for watering animals carry with them the
obligation of the owners of the servient estates to passage to persons and animals to the
place where such easements are to be used, and the indemnity shall include this service.
(556)
EASEMENTS COVERED

> Easements for drawing water and watering animals but there is also an accessory easement
combined with easement of right of way
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH AN EASEMENT TO EXIST

1. It must be for public use

2. It must be in favor of a town or village
3. The right must be sought not by one individual but by the town or village, through its legal
representative
4. The right of way should have a maximum width of 10 meters, which cannot be altered by
the owners of the servient estates although the direction of the path may indeed be changed, 
provided that the use of the easement is not prejudiced

Art. 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of which he can
dispose shall have the right to make it flow through the intervening estates, with the
obligation to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon which
the waters may filter or descend. (557)
EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT

> The right to make water flow through intervening estates in order that one may make use of
said waters
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT

4 REQUISITES FOR THE LEGAL EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT

1. That he can dispose of the water

2. That it is sufficient for the use for which it is intended;
3. That the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least onerous to third
persons;
4. To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner determined by the laws and
regulations.

Art. 643. One desiring to make use of the right granted in the preceding article is obliged:
(1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is sufficient for the use for which
it is intended;
(2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least onerous
to third persons;
(3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner determined by the laws
and regulations. (558)

Art. 644. The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be imposed on buildings,
courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on orchards or gardens already existing. (559)

Art. 645. The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of the servient estate
from closing or fencing it, or from building over the aqueduct in such manner as not to
cause the latter any damage, or render necessary repairs and cleanings impossible.
(560)

Art. 646. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as
continuous and apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous, or
its use depends upon the  needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate
days or hours. (561)

Art. 647. One who for the purpose of irrigating or improving his estate, has to construct a
stop lock or sluice gate in the bed of the stream from which the water is to be taken, may
demand that the owners of the banks permit its construction, after payment of
damages, including those caused by the new easement to such owners and to the other
irrigators. (562)
CONSTRUCTION OF A STOP LOCK OR SLUICE GATE

1. Purpose must be for irrigation or improvement

2. The construction must be on the estate of another
3. Damages must be paid
4. Third persons shouldn’t be prejudiced

Art. 648. The establishment, extent, form and conditions of the servitudes of waters, to which
this section refers, shall be governed by the special laws relating thereto insofar as no
provision therefor is made in this Code. (563a)
PROVISIONS THAT GOVERN EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS

> Civil code provisions on easement of waters prevail over special laws
> In case of conflict between special laws and the new CC, the latter prevails
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

Art. 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any
immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and
without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the
neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all
the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall
consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the
servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate
surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a
permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such
encumbrance. This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the
proprietor's own acts. (564a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEFINED

> Easement or privilege by which one person in a particular class of persons is allowed to pass
over another land, usually through one particular path or line
REQUISITES FOR THE EASEMENT

1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no adequate outlet to a public
highway
2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate and insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
may be the shortest
3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietor’s own acts
PROPER INDEMNITY

1. If the passage is permanent, pay the value of the land occupied by the path plus damages
2. If temporary, pay for the damages caused
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY

1. Private
2. public

Art. 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least prejudicial
to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from
the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest. (565)

N.B: Adequacy to dominant estate

Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for
the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from time to time.
(566a)
WIDTH OF PATH

> The width may be modified from time to time depending on the reasonable needs of the
dominant estate

Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is surrounded by
other estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of
way without indemnity.

In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the
establishment of the right of way. (567a)
RULE IF LAND OF VENDOR IS ISOLATED FROM THE HIGHWAY

> Indemnity included in the purchase price—the buyer is the owner of the dominant estate

Art. 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the grantor that becomes
isolated, he may demand a right of way after paying a indemnity. However, the donor shall
not be liable for indemnity. (n)
RULES IF GRANTOR OR GRANTEE’S LAND IS ENCLOSED

1. If the enclosing estate is that of the grantor, the grantee doesn’t pay indemnity for the
easement
2. If the enclosed estate is that of the grantor, the grantor must pay indemnity

Art. 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made by the
owner of the dominant estate. A proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by
said owner to the proprietor of the servient estate. (n)
OWNERSHIP OF, REPAIRS AND TAXES ON, THE PATH

1. Even though permanent, the path belongs to the servient estate, and he pays all the taxes
2. But the dominant estate—
a. Should pay for repairs
b. Should pay proportionate share of taxes to the servient estate

Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be necessary because its
owner has joined it to another abutting on a public road, the owner of the servient estate MAY
DEMAND that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have received by way of
indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use
of the easement. The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving access to
the isolated estate.  In both cases, the public highway must substantially meet the needs of
the dominant estate in order that the easement may be extinguished. (568a)
CAUSES FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

1. Opening of a new road

2. Joining the dominant estate to another
EXTINGUISHMENT NOT AUTOMATIC

> The extinguishment is not automatic

> The law says that the servient estate may demand
> It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the easement remains and he has no duty to
refund the indemnity
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE TO A VOLUNTARY EASEMENT NO RETURN OF INDEMNITY IN CASE OF
TEMPORARY EASEMENT

Art. 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or

beautification of a building, to carry materials through the estate of another, or to raise
therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of such estate
shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving payment of the proper indemnity for
the damage caused him. (569a)
TEMPORARY EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

1. The easement here is necessarily only temporary, nonetheless proper indemnity must be
given
2. Indispensable is not to be construed literally

3. The owner can make use of Article 656

Art. 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock known as animal
path, animal trail or any other, and those for watering places, resting places and animal
folds, shall be governed by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the
absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place. Without prejudice to rights
legally acquired, the animal path shall not exceed in any case the width of 75 meters,
and the animal trail that of 37 meters and 50 centimeters. Whenever it is necessary to
establish a compulsory easement of the right of way or for a watering place for animals,
the provisions of this Section and those of Articles 640 and 641 shall be observed. In this
case the width shall not exceed 10 meters. (570a)
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK: WIDTH

1. Animal path—75 meters

2. Animal trail—37 meters and 50 centimeters
3. Cattle—10 meters
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

 The legal easement called easement of light and view refers to an easement whereby the
dominant estate enjoys the right to have free access to light, a little air, and a view overlooking
the adjoining estate,e., the servient estate.

 Easement of light is the right to make openings under certain conditions in order to receive light
from another’s tenement while the easement of view is the right to make openings or windows,
to enjoy the view through the estate of another and the power to prevent all constructions or
works which would obstruct such view or make the same difficult.

 The easement of light and view in the case of windows opened in one’s own wall is negative
easement. As such, it cannot be acquired by prescription except where sufficient time of
possession has elapsed after the owner of the dominant estate, by a  formal act, has prohibited
the owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful but for the
easement.

A part-owner of a party wall may use it even without the consent of the other owners so long as he does
not interfere in the common and respective uses by the other co-owners. No part-owner may, however,
make an opening in a party wall without the consent of the other co-owners.  If the same is done
without the consent of the other co-owners, the latter may demand that what has been done be undone
at the expense of the co-owner who made such opening. But if the same is done with the consent of the
other co-owners, the 10-year period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light and view
shall commence to run from the time of the making of such opening.

In the case of Sps. Garcia V. Santos (G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019) the Court explained that:

The legal easement called easement of light and view refers to an easement whereby the dominant
estate enjoys the right to have free access to light, a little air, and a view overlooking the adjoining
estate,  i.e., the servient estate.

The easement of light and view has two components. The easement of light or jus luminum has the
purpose of admitting light and a little air, as in the case of small windows, not more than 30 centimeters
square, at the height of the ceiling joists or immediately under the ceiling. On the other hand, the
easement of view or servidumbre prospectus has the principal purpose of affording view, as in the case
of full or regular windows overlooking the adjoining estate.

Explained otherwise, the easement of light is the right to make openings under certain conditions in
order to receive light from another’s tenement while the easement of view is the right to make openings
or windows, to enjoy the view through the estate of another and the power to prevent all constructions
or works which would obstruct such view or make the same difficult. The easement of view is broader
than the easement of light because the latter is always included in the former.
As held by jurisprudence, the easement of light and view is intrinsically intertwined with the easement
of the servient estate not to build higher or altius non tollendi. These two necessarily go together
“because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate shall not build to
a height that will obstruct the window.”

Article 616 of the Civil Code states that easements may be classified into positive and negative
easements. A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient estate the
obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself. On the other hand, a negative
easement is that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing something which he could
lawfully do if the easement did not exist.

According to Article 621 of the Civil Code, in order to acquire easements by prescription in positive
easements, the prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the owner of the dominant
estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the
servient estate.

With respect to negative easements, the prescriptive period shall commence from the day on which the
owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public, the
owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the easement.

An easement of light and view may either be positive or negative.

As a general rule, an easement of light and view is a positiveone if the window or opening is situated in
a party wall, while it is a negative one if the window or opening is thru one’s own wall,  i.e., thru a wall
of the dominant estate. 

In the case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo (G.R. No. 911 March 12, 1903), the Court held that the easement of light
and view in the case of windows opened in one’s own wall is negative. As such, it cannot be acquired
by prescription except where sufficient time of possession has elapsed after the owner of the dominant
estate, by a formal act, has prohibited the owner of the servient estate from doing something which
would be lawful but for the easement.

A  nuisance is one of the most serious hindrances to the enjoyment of life

and property.
Under the Civil Code:
Nuisance is defined as “any act, omission, establishment, business, condition
of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or(3) Shocks, defies
or disregards decency or morality; or (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 the case of Linda Rana, Vs. Teresita Lee Wong (G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014) , the
Court further explained that:
The term “nuisance” is deemed to be “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.”

Article 695 of the Civil Code classifies nuisances with respect to the object or
objects that they affect. In this regard, a nuisance may either be public or
private.
a. 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.
b. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.
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.
A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is
specially injurious to himself.

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.

The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or

(2) Abatement, 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.

A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be

liable for damages:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real

nuisance.

Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to

abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is
liable therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.

The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person
injured to recover damages for its past existence.

Article 694 of the New Civil Code (NCC) of the Philippines defines nuisance as
“any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property or
anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
or (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks, defies or disregards
decency or morality; or (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.”

However, to avail one’s self the exact remedy one must distinguish what kind
of nuisance it is.

A nuisance is either per se or per accidens.

A nuisance per se is recognized as a nuisance under any and all
circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or
safety.

On the other hand, a nuisance per accidens must be proven a nuisance in a

hearing conducted for a purpose.

Article 695 of the NCC states that “nuisance is either public or private.” A
nuisance may also be classified in this category. 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.

A person may summarily abate the public nuisance. However, it is necessary

that: (a) demand is first made upon the owner or possessor of the property
to abate the nuisance; (b) the owner or possessor refuses to comply with
such demand; (c) abatement is approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police; and (d) the value of the
destruction does not exceed P3,000.

A private person aggrieved by a public nuisance has the following remedies:

(a) prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance; (b) civil action;
or (c) abatement of the public nuisance, without judicial proceedings.

A person aggrieved by a private nuisance may file a civil action or cause the
summary abatement thereof. The same rules for the summary abatement of
a public nuisance are applicable to the abatement of a private nuisance.
Applying the above-mentioned provisions, the situation of my friend is not
considered a public nuisance or nuisance per se, but nuisance per accidens.
The karaoke session is not considered a public nuisance even though it can
somehow affect the community or the people themselves because it does
not have immediate effect upon the safety of persons and property. The
karaoke session is for entertainment purposes and cannot be abated without
a benefit of a court hearing.

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 160-A

SPECIFYING THE LEGAL GROUNDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PROHIBITION AND
ABATEMENT OF BILLBOARDS AND SIGNBOARDS CONSTITUTING PUBLIC NUISANCE
OR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF LAW

WHEREAS, Administrative Order (AO) No. 160 dated October 4, 2006 directed the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to conduct field inspections,
evaluations and assessments of all billboards and determine those that are hazardous
and pose imminent danger to life, health, safety and property of the general public and
to abate and dismantle the same;

WHEREAS, the sovereign has the right to exercise its police power, as its essential
attribute, to promote order, safety, security, health, morals, and general welfare within
constitutional limits;

WHEREAS, under the police power of the state, billboards are a form of commercial
speech which can be prohibited;

WHEREAS, in a long line of jurisprudence, the cognate United States Supreme Court has
held, e. g., that insofar as an ordinance regulates commercial speech, it may forbid
commercial advertising, without running afoul of the Free Speech Clause of the
Constitution, where it directly advances governmental  interests in traffic safety and
aesthetics (Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego,  453 US 490);

WHEREAS, the exercise of police power over billboards are covered by various

enactments, generally in the Civil Code, and particularly in the National Building Code,
Structural Code, and related laws, such as the Local Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby reiterate my directive
to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways, with the assistance of the officials
mentioned in Administrative Order (AO) No. 160 dated October 4, 2006 to follow the
procedure prescribed by law for the abatement of billboards and signboards as a. public
nuisance, and to avail of remedies provided by existing laws.

SECTION 1. Public Nuisance. The Civil Code defines nuisance, in Article 694, Title VIII,
Book II, as any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else
which:

(a) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(b) Annoys or offends the senses; or

(c) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(d) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any
body of water; or

(e) Hinders or impairs the use of property,

Article 695 of the Civil Code provides that 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.

SEC. 2. Prohibited Billboards and Signboards. Pursuant to the National Building Code,

Chapter 20, Section 2001, the following billboards and signboards are prohibited:

(a) Those erected in such a manner as to confuse or obstruct the view or interpretation
of any official traffic sign, signal, or device; or

(b) Those that unduly obstruct the natural view of the landscape, distract or obstruct the
view of the public as to constitute a traffic hazard, or otherwise defile, debase, or offend
the aesthetic and cultural values and traditions of the Filipino people.

SEC. 3. Remedies Against Building Code Violations. Pursuant to Section 206 of the

National Building Code, the Building Official shall immediately issue notice of non-
issuance, suspension, or revocation of building permits for non-compliance with the
provisions of the National Building Code, or of any rule or regulation.
Pursuant to Section 215 of the National Building Code, when any billboard or signboard
is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its
repair, vacation, or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or
safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken pursuant to the Civil
Code provisions in Articles 482 and 694 to 707.

SEC. 4. Remedies Against Public Nuisance. Pursuant to Article 699 of the Civil Code, in
relation to AO No. 160, dated October 4, 2006, the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), through its Secretary, with the help of the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA), and the various local government units (LGUs), through
the local Building Officials, shall take care that one or all of the following remedies
against public nuisances are availed of:

(a) A prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance; or

(b) A civil action; or

(c) Abatement, without judicial proceedings; if the ‘local Building Official determines that
this is the best remedy under the circumstances.

SEC. 5. Remedy of Civil Action. Pursuant to Article 701 of the Civil Code, the city or
municipal mayors shall commence the civil action brought by reason of the
maintenance of a public nuisance.

SEC. 6. Actual or Compensatory Damages. Pursuant to Article 2176 of the Civil Code,

whoever by act or omission relating to billboards and signboards causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is liable for a quasi-delict and is obliged to pay
for the damage done.

Pursuant to Article 2202 of the Civil Code, in quasi-delicts, the owners of billboards and
signboards and their advertising agencies as defendants shall be liable for all damages
which are the natural and probable consequences of the billboard event complained of.
It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could reasonably have
been foreseen by the defendant.

SEC. 7. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effect immediately after its
publication in a national newspaper of general circulation.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 10th day of October in the year of Our Lord, Two
Thousand Six.
(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines