[Coronel, et.al. v. People of the Philippines] | [G.R. No.

213984] | [April 18, 2017] | [SCRA Citation]

[J. Antonio T. Carpio] | [Sereno Court]

Doctrine:

Facts:

Summary of Issues: Whether Torre de Manila is a nuisance per se. No.

Ratio:
Issue: WHETHER TORRE DE MANILA IS A NUISANCE PER SE. NO.

“two kinds of nuisances. The first, nuisance perse, is on

"recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances,
because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety,
and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined
law of necessity." The second, nuisance peraccidens, is that which
"depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its
existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due
hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing in law constitutes a nuisance."
(KOR v. DMCI)

Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the
senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (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.

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." Not only is a condominium project commonplace in
the City of Manila, DMCI-PDI has, according to the proper government agencies, complied with health and safety
standards set by law. DMCI-PDI has been granted the following permits and clearances prior to starting the
project: (1) Height Clearance Permit from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines; (2) Development
Permit from the HLURB; (3) Zoning Certification from the HLURB;(4) Certificate of Environmental Compliance
Commitment from the Environment Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; (5) Barangay Clearance (6) Zoning Permit; (7) Building Permit; (8) and Electrical and Mechanical
Permit.

Later, DMCI-PDI also obtained the right to build under a variance recommended by the MZBAA and granted by
the City Council of Manila. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Torre de Manila project is not a nuisance perse.
On the other hand, the KOR now claims that the Torre de Manila is a nuisance peraccidens.

By definition, a nuisance peraccidens is determined based on its surrounding conditions and circumstances. These
conditions and circumstances must be well established, not merely alleged. The Court cannot simply accept these
conditions and circumstances as established facts as the KOR would have us do in this case. The KOR itself
concedes that the question of whether the Torre de Manila is a nuisance peraccidens is a question of fact.
The authority to decide when a nuisance exists is an authority to find facts, to estimate their force, and to apply
rules of law to the case thus made. 1lhis Court is no such authority. It is not a trier of facts. It cannot simply take
the allegations in the petition and accept these as facts, more so in this case where these allegations are contested
by the respondents.

The task to receive and evaluate evidence is lodged with the trial courts. The question, then, of whether the Torre
de Manila project is a nuisance peraccidens must be settled after due proceedings brought before the proper
Regional Trial Court. The KOR cannot circumvent the process in the guise be protecting national culture and
heritage.