NUISANCE: #1: AC ENTERPRISES vs.

FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORP FACTS: ISSUE: RULING:

#2: ONGSIAKO, ET. AL. vs. ONGSIAKO, ET. AL. GR# L-7510 March 30, 1957 FACTS: There are 3 causes of action filed in this case. One of which is the obstruction of the dikes constructed by the defendants in 1937. Such dikes obstructed the natural flow of excess water from the plaintiffs higher tenement. It was alleged that from time immemorial before the partition of the Hacienda Esperanza, the water coming from the portion of the estate assigned to plaintiffs had been flowing regularly and without artificial obstruction towards the other areas of that same hacienda subsequently assigned to the defendants, as a result of the partition in 1929. The CFI granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant on the ground of prescription. ISSUE: May the dikes be demolished? RULING: The SC affirmed the Order appealed from. Considering that the action was filed in 1951, the legal easement sought to be enforced had been extinguished by non-user and the action is therefore barred by prescription.

#3: TIMONER v. PEO *Petition for review

FACTS: Upon the order of the petitioner, acting then as Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, certain laborers fenced off the stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of Maharlika Highway, the main thoroughfare of the town. Among the structures barricaded was the barber shop of the Pascual Dayaon. The municipal health officer recommended the closure of such establishment for noncompliance with certain health and sanitation requirements. Afterwhich, the petitioner filed before the CFI for judicial abatement of the barricaded stalls on the ground that these are public nuisances nuisances per se. Meanwhile, the petitioner was charged with grave coercion before the MTC. The municipal court found the petitioner, Timoner, guilty of grave coercion. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. ISSUE: W/N the act of the petitioner is proper? RULING: The SC set aside the decision of the CA and ordered the acquittal of the petitioner. The Court held that it is unquestionable that the barbershop was a public nuisance. Such establishment occupied a portion of the sidewalk of the towns main thoroughfare and had been recommended for closure by the municipal health officer. As a matter of fact, the CFI declared said barbershop as nuisance per se. Also, the petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the municipal health officer. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability.