Dear PAO,

We currently live in a subdivision. Our neighbors parked their car outside their garage and have even built a mini basketball court on the road itself. Because of this, my neighbors and I are having difficulty passing through that road because of the obstructions. One evening, they even closed that particular part of the road, thus, none of us could pass through it. Most of the families living in our subdivision were affected by this road obstruction. We want to know whether we, on our own, could remove the said mini basketball court.

Gohan

Dear Gohan,

Article 694 of the New Civil Code 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.

In the case of Natividad C. Cruz, et al. vs. Pandacan Hiker’s Club (GR 188213, Jan. 11, 2016), the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, classified nuisance in two ways: (1) according to the object it affects; (2) according to its susceptibility to summary abatement.

According to the object that the nuisance affects, Article 695 of the New Civil Code states that nuisance may either be public or private. It is considered public if it affects a community, neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. It is private if it only violates private rights and produces damage to but one or a few persons.

As to its susceptibility to summary abatement, case law provides that nuisance may be classified as nuisance per se or nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per se affects the immediate safety of persons and property, thus, it could be summarily abated under the law of necessity. On the other hand, a nuisance per accidens cannot be abated without due hearing on whether or not such thing is considered in law as nuisance.

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court ruled that a basketball ring, by itself, poses no immediate harm or danger to anyone but it is merely an object of recreation. Therefore, by its nature, it is not injurious to rights, property, or health of the community. Hence, it may not be summarily abated.

In your case, the basketball ring and the mini basketball court may be considered as public nuisance because as you narrated, such obstructions affect most of the families living in your subdivision. However, as ruled by the Supreme Court, the said basketball court, as well as your neighbor’s car which causes obstruction, may only be considered as nuisance per accidens because it, in itself, is not injurious to rights, property, or health of the community. Therefore, you and your other neighbors cannot immediately remove such nuisance without any judicial hearing.

There are certain remedies under the law which you could avail. Under Article 699 of the New Civil Code, you may file a criminal case for violation of the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, if any, or a civil action against your neighbor.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]