Pablo, Warly G.

LLB2-LLB-2C1

Nuisance is defined as “that activity which arises from the unreasonable, unwarrantable
or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working an obstruction or injury to the right of
another or to the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort
that the law will presume resulting damage.”

The civil action of nuisance in application to environmental law is not necessarily

contingent upon injury it could simply constitute annoyance, welfare, health, or convenience.

Nuisance suits, in environmental law, pertain mostly to practices and property uses that
encroach upon a neighbor’s right to enjoy their own property. The nuisance must constitute an
unreasonable and objectionable public or private use of one’s land to the detriment of another’s.
In environmental law, many public nuisances are considered crimes. Private nuisances make
similar allegations; however, they more often involve civil court actions. 

Under both private and public nuisance law, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s
activity unreasonably interfered with the use or enjoyment of a protected interest and caused the
plaintiff substantial harm.

Magallona v. Ermina is a case in which the Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of

the new law on the ground that: it reduces the Philippine maritime territory, in violation of
Article 1 of the Constitution and it opens the country’s waters to maritime passage by all vessels,
thus undermining Philippine sovereignty. Respondents, on the other hand, defended the new law
as the country’s compliance with the terms of UNCLOS. Respondents stressed that RA 9522
does not relinquish the country’s claim over Sabah.

However, the ruled that UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of
territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones
(i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical
miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and
continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.

UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations
members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the world’s oceans and submarine
areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span of
waters and submarine lands along their coasts.

Thus, nuisance in this case was not present as UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines
laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory.
Under traditional international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory
through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription, not by executing multilateral treaties on
the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit
maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS
III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international law.

In the case of Knights of Rizal v, DMCI Homes, KOR contends that the project is a
nuisance per se because "the despoliation of the sight view of the Rizal Monument is a situation
that annoy's or offends the senses' of every Filipino who honors the memory of the National
Hero Jose Rizal. It is a present, continuing, worsening and aggravating status or condition.
Hence, the PROJECT is a nuisance per se. It deserves to be abated summarily, even without need
of judicial proceeding.

However, it was held that there is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de
Manila. The Court has allowed or upheld actions that were not expressly prohibited by statutes
when it determined that these acts were not contrary to morals, customs, and public order, or that
upholding the same would lead to a more equitable solution to the controversy. However, it is the
law itself - Articles 130655 and 1409(1)56 of the Civil Code - which prescribes that acts not
contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are allowed if also not contrary
to law.

In this case, there is no allegation or proof that the Torre de Manila project is "contrary to
morals, customs, and public order" or that it brings harm, danger, or hazard to the community.
There is no law prohibiting the construction of the Torre de Manila due to its effect on the
background "view, vista, sightline, or setting" of the Rizal Monument.

Thus, it can easily be gleaned that the Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se. The Torre
de Manila project cannot be considered as a "direct menace to I public health or safety."

I think that when it comes to nuisance cases as also explained in the Article written by
Micheal Blumm, such cases requires long scrutiny to see if such nuisance exist and affects both
public and private relations of the members of the society.

As held in Smart Communications, Inc. v. Aldecoa, that the term “nuisance” is so

comprehensive that it has been applied to almost all ways which have interfered with the rights
of the citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.