7/25/2019 Nuisance Final 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-final-3 1/4

In the cases of Rana vs. Wong (2014)  and Timoner vs. People (1983), theCourt discussed on what constitutes nuisance under the Philippine law. Article 694 ofthe Civil Code denes nuisance as "any act, omission, estalishment, usiness, conditionof property, or anythin! else which #$% In&ures or endan!ers the health or safety ofothers' or #(% Annoys or o)ends the senses' or #*% +hocs, dees or disre!ards decencyor morality' or #4% -structs or interferes with the free passa!e of any pulic hi!hway orstreet, or any ody of water' or #% /inders or impairs the use of property." 0he Courtconsidered the term "nuisance" to e so comprehensive that it has een applied to

almost all ways which have interfered with the ri!hts of the citi1ens, either in person,property, the en&oyment of his property, or his comfort

Article 69 of the Civil Code classies nuisances with respect to the o&ect or o&ects thatthey a)ect. In this re!ard, a nuisance may either e #a% a pulic nuisance or one which"a)ects a community or nei!horhood or any considerale numer of persons, althou!hthe e2tent of the annoyance, dan!er or dama!e upon individuals may e une3ual"' or #%a private nuisance or one "that is not included in the fore!oin! denition" or, as case lawputs it, one which "violates only private ri!hts and produces dama!es to ut one or a fewpersons".

 urisprudence further classies nuisances in relation to their le!al susceptiility tosummary aatement #that is, corrective action without prior &udicial permission%. In thisre!ard, a nuisance "may either e #a% a nuisance per se or one which "a)ects theimmediate safety of persons and property and may e summarily aated under theundened law of necessity"' or #% a nuisance per accidens or that which "depends uponcertain conditions and circumstances, and its e2istence ein! a 3uestion of fact, itcannot e aated without due hearin! thereon in a triunal authori1ed to decide whethersuch a thin! does in law constitute a nuisance."

It is a standin! &urisprudential rule that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may note summarily aated. In Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. Jac Liner, lnc. , the Courtcitin! other cases on the matter, emphasi1ed the need for &udicial intervention when thenuisance is not a nuisance per se, to wit

In Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of Appeals, this Court held

5espondents cannot see cover under the !eneral welfare clause authori1in! theaatement of nuisances without &udicial proceedin!s. 0hat tenet applies to a nuisanceper se, or one which a)ects the immediate safety of persons and property and may esummarily aated under the undened law of necessity. 0he stora!e of copra in theonset uildin! is a le!itimate usiness. y its nature, it cannot e said to e in&urious tori!hts of property, of health or of comfort of the community. If it e a nuisance  per

accidens it may e so proven in a hearin! conducted for that purpose. It is not  per se anuisance warrantin! its summary aatement without &udicial intervention.

Aside from the remedy of summary aatement which should e taen under theparameters stated in Articles 784. #for pulic nuisances% and 786 #for private nuisances%of the Civil Code, a private person whose property ri!ht was invaded or unreasonalyinterfered with y the act, omission, estalishment, usiness or condition of the propertyof another may le a civil action to recover personal dama!es.  Aatement may e &udicially sou!ht throu!h a civil action therefore if the pertinent re3uirements under theCivil Code for summary aatement, or the re3uisite that the nuisance is a nuisance per

7/25/2019 Nuisance Final 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-final-3 2/4

se, do not concur. 0o note, the remedies of aatement and dama!es are cumulative'hence, oth may e demanded. 

In the case of 5ana, the Court nds that the same is not a nuisance  per se. y its natureit is not in&urious to the health or comfort of the community. It was uilt primarily tofacilitate the in!ress and e!ress of +ps. 5ana from their house which was admittedlylocated on a hi!her elevation than the su&ect road and the ad&oinin! :y, and ;on!-n!properties. +ince the su&ect portion is not a nuisance per se it cannot e summarily

aated.

-n the other hand, in 0imoner case, the Court nds that the arershop in 3uestion didconstitute a pulic nuisance as dened under Article <os. 694 and 69 of the Civil Code. 0he arershop occupied a portion of the sidewal of the polacion=s main thorou!hfareand had een recommended for closure y the >unicipal /ealth -?cer.

In the cases of Mendoza vs. N! (1982), "no# vs. $!% (198&) and Tamin vs.%! (1992)' it was held that the su&ect matter in 3uestion are nuisance per se, hence

they can e summarily aated. @urthermore, mentioned other cases which can econsidered as nuisance such as the followin!

• A mad do! on the loose, which may e illed on si!ht ecause of theimmediate dan!er it poses to the safety and lives of the people.

• Porno!raphic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic dru!s are

inherently pernicious and may e summarily destroyed.

•  0he passport of a person sou!ht for a criminal o)ense may e cancelled

without hearin!, to compel his return to the country he has ed.

• @ilthy restaurants may e summarily padloced in the interest of the pulic

health and awdy houses to protect the pulic morals.

• A parcel of land owned y the municipality which is reserved for a pulic

pla1a and ein! occupied y persons who refused to vacate the premisesdespite demands'

In such instances, the previous &udicial hearin! may e omitted without violation of dueprocess in view of the nature of the property involved or the ur!ency of the need toprotect the !eneral welfare from a clear and present dan!er.

As to o&ects which are considered to shoc, dees or disre!ards decency or morality toofall under the denition of nuisance, the court made a thorou!h discussion in the casesof Pi#a vs. %! (1989) and ernando vs. %! (200) citin! the case of People vsPadlan it held that if the actual e2hiition of the se2ual act, preceded y acts oflasciviousness, can have no redeemin! feature. In it, there is no room for art. -ne cansee nothin! in it ut clear and unmiti!ated oscenity, indecency, and an o)ense topulic morals, inspirin! and causin! as it does, nothin! ut lust and lewdness, and

7/25/2019 Nuisance Final 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-final-3 3/4

e2ertin! a corruptin! inuence specially on the youth of the land, then they arecondemned for oscenity and are deemed o)ensive to morals.

@urthermore, citing the case of  People v. Kottinger, the Court defined obscenity as something which is

offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy. The test to determine the existence of obscenity is, whether the

tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such

immoral influences and into whose hands a publication or other article charged as being obscene mayfall. Another test according to Kottinger is “that which shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an

indecency.” ut, Kottinger hastened to say that whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon thecircumstances of the case, and that ultimately, the !uestion is to be decided by the "udgment of the aggregatesense of the community reached by it.

 #otably, the Court in the later case of Gonzales v. Kalaw Katigbak , involving motion pictures, still applied the

“contemporary community standards” of Kottinger but departed from the rulings of Kottinger, Go

 Pin and Padan y Alova in that the Court measures obscenity in terms of the “dominant theme” of the materialtaken as a “whole” rather than in isolated passages.

 0he Court in Pita also emphasi1ed the di?culty of the 3uestion and pointed outhow ha1y &urisprudence is on oscenity and how &urisprudence actually failed to settle

3uestions on the matter. +i!nicantly, the dynamism of human civili1ation does not helpat all. It is evident that individual tastes develop, adapt to wideran!in! inuences, andeep in step with the rapid advance of civili1ation. It seems futile at this point toformulate a perfect denition of oscenity that shall apply in all cases.

 0here is no perfect denition of Boscenity ut the latest word is that of Miller v.California which estalished asic !uidelines, to wit #a% whether to the avera!e person,applyin! contemporary standards would nd the wor, taen as a whole, appeals to theprurient interest' #% whether the wor depicts or descries, in a patently o)ensive way,se2ual conduct specically dened y the applicale state law' and #c% whether the wor,taen as a whole, lacs serious literary, artistic, political, or scientic value. ut, it would

e a serious misreadin! of Miller to conclude that the trier of facts has the unridleddiscretion in determinin! what is Bpatently o)ensive. <o one will e su&ect toprosecution for the sale or e2posure of oscene materials unless these materials depictor descrie patently o)ensive Bhard core se2ual conduct. D2amples included #apatently o)ensive representations or descriptions of ultimate se2ual acts, normal orperverted, actual or simulated' and #% patently o)ensive representations or descriptionsof masturation, e2cretory functions, and lewd e2hiition of the !enitals. ;hat remainsclear is that oscenity is an issue proper for &udicial determination and should e treatedon a case to case asis and on the &ud!eEs sound discretion.

  In the aove mentioned cases, the trial court found the conscated materials

oscene and the Court of Appeals a?rmed such ndin!s. Pictures of men and women inthe nude doin! the se2ual act appearin! in the nine #9% conscated ma!a1ines namelyFala!a, Penthouse, +wan, Drotic, 5ave, Playhouse, Gallery and two #(% issues of H:I areo)ensive to morals and are made and shown not for the sae of art ut rather forcommercial purposes, that is !ain and prot as the e2clusive consideration in theire2hiition. 0he pictures in the ma!a1ine e2hiited indecent and immoral scenes andacts0he e2hiition of the se2ual act in their ma!a1ines is ut a clear and unmiti!atedoscenity, indecency and an o)ense to pulic morals, inspirin!lust and lewdnesse2ertin! a corruptin! inuence especially on the youth. 0he J/+ tapes also e2hiit nudemen and women doin! the se2ual intercourse. 0he tape entitled BKahit sa Pan!arap

7/25/2019 Nuisance Final 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nuisance-final-3 4/4

Lan! with >yra >anio! as the actress shows the naed ody of the actress. 0he tapee2hiited indecent and immoral scenes and acts. /er dancin! movements e2cited these2ual instinct of her male audience. 0he motive may e innocent, ut the performancewas revoltin! and shocin! to !ood minds...  In one #$% case the +upreme Court ruled+ince the persons who went to see those pictures and paid entrance fees were usuallynot artists or persons interested in art to satisfy and inspire their artistic tastes utpersons who are desirous of satisfyin! their morid curiosity, taste and lust and for MloveN

of e2citement, includin! the youth who ecause of their immaturity are not in a positionto resist and shield themselves from the ill and pervertin! e)ects of the pictures, thedisplay of such pictures for commercial purposes is a violation of Art. (8$. If thosepictures were shown in art e2hiits and art !alleries for the cause of art, to e viewedand appreciated y people interested in art, there would e no o)ense committed.

$ence, if the pictures were used not e2actly for art=s sae ut rather for commerciapurposes," the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection.