TAMIN VS. CA- Abatement of Public Nuisance
FACTS:
Petitioner municipality represented by its mayor Real filed in the RTC a complaint for the ejectment of respondents. It is alleged that the municipality owns a parcel of residential land located in Zamboanga del Sur and the said parcel of land was reserved for public plaza under PD 365 and that during the mayor, the municipality leased the area to the defendants subject to the condition that they should vacate the place in case it is needed for public purposes and the defendants paid the rentals religiously until 1967. They refused to vacate the said land despite the efforts of the government since money is allocated for the construction of a municipal gymnasium within the public plaza and such construction could not continue because of the presence of the buildings constructed by the defendants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipality has a cause of action for the abatement of public nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code.
Held:
Yes based on the definition of a nuisance provided for in the CC which states that “Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property or anything else which: … hinders or impairs the use of the property.” Article 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be equal.”
Article 699 provides for the following remedies against public nuisance:
1. A prosecution under the penal code or any local ordinance
2. civil action
3. abatement without judicial proceedings In the present case, the municipality chose to file a civil action for the recovery of possession of the parcel of land occupied by the PR. Under the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan has to first pass an ordinance before summarily abate a public nuisance.
Considering the facts in the complaint is true then the writ of possession and writ of demolition would have been justified. A writ of demolition would have been sufficient to eject the private respondent.
