Nuisance Per Accidens Cannot Be Summarily Abated

Legal Framework and Application

In the realm of property and environmental law, the concept of "nuisance" plays a crucial role in balancing individual rights with public welfare. One of the key distinctions in nuisance law is between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. While nuisance per se—an act or condition inherently illegal or harmful—can be summarily abated by authorities, nuisance per accidens (or nuisance in fact) cannot be removed without due process. This blog post explores the legal framework governing nuisance per accidens and its practical applications.

Understanding Nuisance Per Accidens

A nuisance per accidens is an act, structure, or use of property that becomes a nuisance due to its circumstances or effects rather than its inherent nature. For instance, a factory producing loud noise and pollution might not be illegal in itself but can be deemed a nuisance based on its impact on the surrounding community.

Because the classification of nuisance per accidens depends on factual determinations, it requires judicial evaluation before any enforcement action can be taken. Unlike nuisance per se, which can be summarily abated due to its inherent unlawfulness, nuisance per accidens necessitates proper legal proceedings to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary government actions.

Legal Framework: Due Process and Judicial Determination

1. Constitutional Protections

The principle that nuisance per accidens cannot be summarily abated stems from constitutional due process rights. In the Philippines, the right to property is protected under the 1987 Constitution, specifically under Article III, Section 1, which states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Similar protections exist in other jurisdictions, ensuring that government actions affecting property rights follow legal procedures.

2. Judicial Precedents

Philippine jurisprudence has consistently held that a nuisance per accidens must be determined by a competent court before any abatement measures are undertaken. Courts evaluate factors such as the nature of the alleged nuisance, its impact on public welfare, and potential remedies. In contrast, nuisance per se, such as illegal structures blocking public roads, may be abated without court intervention.

3. Legislative and Local Government Authority

Under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), local governments are empowered to regulate nuisances within their jurisdictions. However, this authority does not extend to summarily abating nuisance per accidens without a proper hearing. Any attempt to do so may be challenged as a violation of due process.

Practical Applications: How Courts Handle Nuisance Per Accidens Cases

Given the need for judicial determination, parties affected by a nuisance per accidens must file a complaint before the courts. The process typically involves:

1. Filing a Case – Affected parties must present evidence demonstrating that a specific activity or property use constitutes a nuisance based on its effects.

2. Court Evaluation – The court examines whether the nuisance claim is valid, taking into account expert testimony, environmental studies, and community impact.

3. Remedies and Enforcement – If the court determines that a nuisance exists, it may order remedies such as fines, restrictions, or even closure of operations, depending on the severity of the nuisance.

Conclusion

The distinction between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens is crucial in protecting property rights while maintaining public order. While authorities can summarily abate nuisance per se, they must follow due process in addressing nuisance per accidens. This ensures that actions taken against property owners are justified and legally sound, preventing arbitrary government interference. Understanding these legal principles is essential for property owners, businesses, and local government units navigating nuisance-related disputes.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Can abandonment per se be grounds for termination of a tenancy relationship?

In the Philippines, abandonment alone is generally not an automatic ground for terminating a tenancy relationship. However, it can be a valid reason for termination if certain conditions are met.

Key Considerations:

1. Definition of Abandonment

   • Abandonment means that the tenant voluntarily leaves the property without intent to return and fails to pay rent or fulfill obligations under the lease.

   • It must be clear and unequivocal that the tenant has no intention to come back.

2. Legal Basis for Termination

   • Civil Code of the Philippines (Article 1673): A landlord can terminate a lease due to non-payment of rent, violation of lease conditions, or lack of occupancy for an unreasonable period.

   • RA 9653 (Rent Control Act): If the tenant abandons the unit for an extended period without notice and without paying rent, the landlord may take action.

   • Agricultural Tenancy (RA 3844 - Agricultural Land Reform Code): Abandonment of farmland without justification can be a cause for termination of tenancy.

3. What Landlords Must Do

   • Serve a notice to vacate and follow the proper legal process.

   • File an ejectment case in court if necessary.

   • Avoid self-help eviction, such as changing locks or forcibly removing belongings, which can lead to illegal eviction charges.

   • 
     

When Abandonment is NOT Enough

• If the tenant still pays rent, even if absent.

• If the absence is temporary and justified (e.g., medical emergency, work abroad).

• If there is no clear intent to permanently leave the unit.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Third-Party Adverse Possessor in Philippine Law

In Philippine property law, adverse possession refers to a legal principle where a person (the possessor) who is not the owner of a property may eventually acquire ownership through continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the land for a prescribed period.

This is based on the legal doctrine of "prescription" under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Third-Party Adverse Possessor Defined

A third-party adverse possessor is a person who possesses a property without the consent of the owner and without any valid legal title, claiming ownership in a way that is:

• Public – Openly using the land as if they were the owner

• Notorious – Known to the community or the original owner

• Exclusive – No other party is using the land

• Continuous and Uninterrupted – Possession must last for the legally required period

This third-party possessor is different from someone who originally had permission to use the land (e.g., a lessee or tenant).

Legal Period for Adverse Possession in the Philippines

Under Article 1137 of the Civil Code:

• If the land is private property, adverse possession must be for 30 years, regardless of whether the owner was aware.

• If the land was previously public property but became private through possession, the period is 10 years if the possessor has a "just title" and in good faith.

Example Scenario of Third-Party Adverse Possession

Case: Juan and Maria’s Disputed Lot

1. Original Ownership – Maria owns a 1,000 sqm lot in Pangasinan but has not visited or used it for 40 years.

2. Adverse Possession Begins – In 1984, Juan, a farmer with no legal claim to the land, starts living on and cultivating it, believing it is abandoned.

3. Notorious and Continuous Possession – Juan builds a house, plants crops, and pays real property taxes, openly treating it as his own for 30+ years.

4. Ownership Claim – In 2024, Maria’s heirs try to reclaim the land, but Juan argues that he now owns it through acquisitive prescription.

Legal Outcome: Since Juan has adversely possessed the land for more than 30 years, he can file for ownership under extraordinary prescription, even though he had no title when he took possession.

To conclude:

A third-party adverse possessor is someone with no legal right or title to a property but who occupies it as an owner for the required period. If the possession meets the legal requirements, ownership can be transferred through acquisitive prescription.

The rightful owner must assert their rights within the prescriptive period, or risk losing ownership.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate