TRINIDAD DE AYALA ET AL, vs. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO ET AL.

No. 9966. February 14, 1916

NUISANCES; ERECTION AND OPERATION OF A COMBINED BREWERY AND ICE

PLANT

Facts:
This is a suit for a permanent injunction against the erection and operation of a combined brewery
and ice plant on Calle General Solano in the city of Manila, on the ground that it will be a nuisance
on the said residential street.
The Plaintiffs are all residents or lessees on Calle General Solano. The street is parallel to the Pasig
River and the adjacent streets near Calle General Solano are already industrial. Some breweries
near the street are also long established. Calle General Solano street now hosts a coal yard, a
warehouse, and a cigarette factory, all very near the proposed location of the defendant's brewery,
and there are also a public school and a club on the street Just across the river is located the large
power plant of the electric railroad and light company, consuming about 50 tons of coal per day.
Issue:
Whether or not the erection and operation of a combined brewery and ice plant is a nuisance.
Held:
Under these facts we do not think that it can be said with entire correctness that the street in
question is a strictly residential street.
One who settles in a district which has a natural watercourse, especially beneficial for
transportation purposes, or who remains, while in the march of events his chosen neighborhood,
although at first largely residential, becomes a trading or manufacturing center, must submit to the
ordinary annoyances and discomforts which are incidental to the reasonable and general conduct
of such business.
JUAN BENGZON vs. THE PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN
No. 41941. January 9, 1936

NUISANCE; DAMAGES FOR MAINTAINING AND OPERATING APPARATUS FOR

THE STORAGE OF WATER

Facts:
Plaintiff owns a house constructed of wood and covered with nipa. The defendant is located at the
adjacent lot. There are three machines in the lot of defendant, one electrical, one gasoline and one
crude oil. On the side of the tank nearest the plaintiff's residence and at a distance of 3.4 meters is
a chimney which rises to about the height of the gable of the house. The tank itself is 3.8 meters
from the house of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff protested for the manner in which the plant was being operated and asked that he be
indemnified for the value of his house and lot so that he might move his family and his effects to
another residence
Issue:
Whether or not the protest would prosper.
Held:
In locating its pumping station within 3.8 meters from the house of the plaintiff, the defendant
should reasonably have foreseen that the noise, vibrations, smoke, odor and sparks coming from
the plant during its operation, not only during the day but during the night as well, would cause a
constant annoyance, discomfort and danger both to the property of the plaintiff and the health and
comfort of himself and his family.
The doctrine that one who consents to, permits or acquiesces in the erection of a structure with
knowledge of the purpose for which it is to be put and the consequences of its erection and use
will not be heard to say that the building or its uses are productive of a nuisance, is not applicable
here, for the plaintiff neither consented to, permitted or acquiesced in the erection of the structure;
nor could it fairly be said that he had knowledge in advance of all the consequences of the erection
and the manner of operation of the plant here in question.
DIOSDADO A. SITCHON, ET AL. vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila

No. L-8191. February 27, 1956

NUISANCE; SUMMARY REMOVAL OF NUISANCES PER SE" AND PUBLIC NUISANCES.

Facts:

This is a class suits against the City Engineer of Manila to enjoin him from carrying out his threat to
demolish the houses of petitioners upon the ground that said houses constitute public nuisances.

Petitioners occupied portions of the public street known as Calabash Road, City of Manila, and constructed
houses thereon, without the consent of the authorities. Later on, some of them paid concession fees for
the use of said portions of the street, to a collector of the city treasurer, who issued receipts with an
annotation reading: without prejudice to the order to vacate. Respondent City Engineer advised and
ordered them to vacate the place.

Issue:

Whether or not the properties of petitioners are nuisance.

Held:

Houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and river beds, obstruct at all
times the free use by the public of said places and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from
public nuisances, under Articles 694 and 695 of the Civil Code. As such, they may be summarily removed,
without judicial proceedings, despite the due process clause.

The police power of the state justifies the abatement or destruction, by summary proceedings, of
whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance; and the legislature may authorize the summary
abatement of a nuisance without judicial process or proceeding.