7/26/2019 1. Perez Case Digest _ Nuisance and Damages

1/2

G.R. No. 184478 March 21, 2012

JAIME S. PEREZ, both in his p rsona! an" o##icia! capacit$ as %hi #, Mari&ina ' (o!ition )##ic , Petitioner,vs. SP)*SES +)R *NI ) -. MA'R)NA an" )-AN'A /. PAN E, Respondents.

+A% S Respondents are registered owners of a residential property covered by TCT 169365. In 19 9, respondents b!iltt"eir "o!se t"ereon and enclosed it wit" a concrete fence and steel gate. In 1999, respondents received a letter dated#ay $5, 1999 fro% petitioner &ai%e '. Pere(, C"ief of t"e #ari)ina *e%olition +ffice alleging t"at t"eir str!ct!re violatedseveral ordinances and conse !ently advised to de%olis" t"eir str!ct!re.

'po!ses responded stating t"at said letter -1 contained an acc!sation libelo!s in nat!re as it is conde%ning "i% and "isproperty wit"o!t d!e process/ -$ "as no basis and a!t"ority since t"ere is no co!rt order a!t"ori(ing "i% to de%olis" t"eir str!ct!re/ -3 cited legal bases w"ic" do not e0pressly give petitioner a!t"ority to de%olis"/ and - contained a falseacc!sation since t"eir fence did not in fact e0tend to t"e sidewal). 2not"er letter was sent re !esting t"e respondents tos!b%it relocation plan w"ic" t"e latter ignored.

+n ebr!ary $ , $441, petitioner sent anot"er letter wit" t"e sa%e contents as t"e first notice in 1999, "ence t"erespondents filed an in !nction co%plaint w"ic" t"ey alleged t"at -1 petitioner s letters %ade it appear t"at t"eir fencewas encroac"ing on t"e sidewal) and directed t"e% to re%ove it, ot"erwise "e wo!ld ta)e t"e corresponding action/ -$petitioner s t"reat of action wo!ld be da%aging and adverse to respondents and appears real, earnest and i%%inent/ -3t"e re%oval of t"eir fence, w"ic" wo!ld incl!de t"e %ain gate, wo!ld certainly e0pose t"e pre%ises and its occ!pants tointr!ders or t"ird persons/ - petitioner "as no legal a!t"ority to de%olis" str!ct!res in private properties and t"e laws "ecited in "is letters do not give "i% any a!t"ority to do so/ -5 respondents en oy t"e legal pres!%ption of rig"tf!lpossession of every inc" of t"eir property/ -6 if petitioner acc!ses t"e% of erroneo!s possession, "e s"o!ld so prove onlyt"ro!g" t"e proper for!% w"ic" is t"e co!rts/ -7 t"eir fence is beside t"e sidewal) and t"e land on w"ic" it stands "asnever been t"e s!b ect of ac !isition eit"er by negotiation or e0propriation fro% t"e govern%ent/ - petitioner s intendedact of de%olition even in t"e g!ise of a road rig"t of way "as no fact!al or legal basis since t"ere is no e0istinginfrastr!ct!re pro ect of t"e national govern%ent or #ari)ina City govern%ent/ and -9 petitioner s letter and "is intendedact of de%olition are %alicio!s, !nfo!nded, %eant only to "arass respondents in gross violation of t"eir rig"ts and ine0cess and o!tside t"e scope of "is a!t"ority, t"ereby rendering "i% acco!ntable bot" in "is personal and official capacity.

Respondents li)ewise so!g"t t"e iss!ance of a te%porary restraining order -TR+ and a writ of preli%inary in !nction toen oin petitioner and all persons acting !nder "i% fro% doing any act of de%olition on t"eir property and t"at after trial, t"e

in !nction be %ade per%anent. T"ey also prayed for %oral and e0e%plary da%ages and attorney s fees.

R % in favor of respondents. %A affir%ing t"e RTC decision.

ISS*E 8 1. +: t"e str!ct!re is a n!isance per se w"ic" %ay be abated s!%%arily wit"o!t !dicial intervention.

$. +: petitioner is liable to pay attorney s fees and costs of s!it.

R*-ING 1. No. If petitioner indeed fo!nd respondents fence to "ave encroac"ed on t"e sidewal), "is re%edy is not tode%olis" t"e sa%e s!%%arily after respondents failed to "eed "is re !est to re%ove it. Instead, "e s"o!ld go to co!rt andprove respondents s!pposed violations in t"e constr!ction of t"e concrete fence. Indeed, !nless a t"ing is a n!isance perse, it %ay not be abated s!%%arily wit"o!t !dicial intervention. 34 +!r r!ling in Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc. , on t"e need for !dicial intervention w"en t"e n!isance is not a n!isance per se, is well wort" %entioning. Insaid case, we r!led8

Respondents can not see) cover !nder t"e general welfare cla!se a!t"ori(ing t"e abate%ent of n!isances wit"o!t !dicialproceedings. T"at tenet applies to a n!isance per se, or one w"ic" affects t"e i%%ediate safety of persons and propertyand %ay be s!%%arily abated !nder t"e !ndefined law of necessity -#onteverde v. ;eneroso, 5$ P"il. 1$3 y its nat!re, it can not be said to be in !rio!s to rig"ts of property, of "ealt" or of co%fort of t"e co%%!nity. If it be a n!isance per accidens it %ay be so proven in a "earingcond!cted for t"at p!rpose. It is not per se a n!isance warranting its s!%%ary abate%ent wit"o!t !dicial intervention.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt8

7/26/2019 1. Perez Case Digest _ Nuisance and Damages

2/2

Respondents fence is not a n!isance per se . >y its nat!re, it is not in !rio!s to t"e "ealt" or co%fort of t"e co%%!nity. Itwas b!ilt pri%arily to sec!re t"e property of respondents and prevent intr!ders fro% entering it. 2nd as correctly pointedo!t by respondents, t"e sidewal) still e0ists. If petitioner believes t"at respondents fence indeed encroac"es on t"esidewal), it %ay be so proven in a "earing cond!cted for t"at p!rpose. :ot being a n!isance per se, b!t at %ost an!isance per accidens, its s!%%ary abate%ent wit"o!t !dicial intervention is !nwarranted. ?ence, in !nction was proper.

2. ES . 2s respondents were forced to file a case against petitioner to en oin t"e i%pending de%olition of t"eir property,t"e award of attorney s fees and costs of s!it is !stified. Clearly, respondents wanted to settle t"e proble% on t"eir alleged encroac"%ent wit"o!t resorting to co!rt processes w"en t"ey replied by letter after receiving petitioner s firstnotice. Petitioner, "owever, instead of considering t"e points raised in respondents reply@letter, re !ired t"e% to s!b%itt"e relocation plan as if "e wants respondents to prove t"at t"ey are not encroac"ing on t"e sidewal) even if it was "ew"o %ade t"e acc!sation of violation in t"e first place. 2nd w"en "e did not get t"e AproofA "e was re !iring fro%respondents, "e again sent a notice wit" a t"reat of s!%%ary de%olition. T"is gave respondents no ot"er c"oice b!t to filean in !nction co%plaint against petitioner to protect t"eir rig"ts.

it" regard to respondents clai% for %oral da%ages, t"is Co!rt r!les t"at t"ey are entitled t"ereto in t"e a%o!ntof P14,444.44 p!rs!ant to 2rticle $$17 3$ of t"e Civil Code. 2s testified to by respondents, t"ey s!ffered an0iety andsleepless nig"ts since t"ey were worried w"at wo!ld "appen to t"eir c"ildren w"o were left by t"e%selves in t"eir#ari)ina residence w"ile t"ey were in +r%oc City if petitioner wo!ld %a)e real "is t"reat of de%olition on t"eirfence. 1wphi1

e li)ewise "old t"at respondents are entitled to e0e%plary da%ages in t"e a%o!nt of P5,444.44 to serve as an e0a%pleto ot"er p!blic officials t"at t"ey s"o!ld be %ore circ!%spect in t"e perfor%ance of t"eir d!ties.

3ERE+)R B, t"e C2 decisions are 2 IR#B* wit" #+*I IC2TI+:. Petitioner &ai%e '. Pere(, C"ief of t"e *e%olition+ffice of #ari)ina City is )R'ERE' to pay respondent 'po!ses ort!nito . #adrona and Dolanda >. Pante %oralda%ages in t"e a%o!nt of P14,444.44 and e0e%plary da%ages in t"e a%o!nt of P5,444.44. '+ +R*BRB*.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/mar2012/gr_184478_2012.html#fnt32