CASE DIGEST
Rana v. Wong
G.R. No. 192861-62.
[June 30, 2014]
SECOND DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE
Property; Nuisance; Abatement of Nuisance
Unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se,
it cannot be summarily abated.
Teresita Lee Wong and Spouses Shirley
and Ruben Ang Ong co-own a residential land in Cebu City. Across the road,
Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana elevated and cemented a portion of the road and
backfilled near the property of Spouses Wilson and Rosario Uy, without erecting
a retaining wall that would hold the weight of the added filling materials.
This led to a legal case where Wong, et al., claimed the actions of Sps. Rana constituted a nuisance affecting road access and safety, through a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages against Sps. Rana before the RTC. The RTC ruled that the backfilling was a nuisance. The backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property, thereby constituting a nuisance. The Court of Appeals upheld these rulings.
Whether the elevated and cemented road portion created by Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana considered a nuisance per se.
NO. The court discusses the legal definitions of nuisances and clarifies that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it cannot be summarily abated. The court rules that the elevated road portion is not a nuisance per se, as it does not inherently endanger health, safety, or obstruct passage, and thus, its demolition was unwarranted. Consequently, its summary abatement without judicial permission is not justified.
The court also addresses the subject
backfilling, deeming it a nuisance and ordering Linda Rana to construct a
retaining wall to rectify the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment