The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Noli Dela Cruz and affirmed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals declaring that the steel gate he installed on a right of way is a nuisance per accidens. The Court affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals rulings with modification as to the imposition of legal interest.
The Case
The case stemmed from a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages filed by Jorivel Carifio against Noli Dela Cruz. In her Complaint, Carifio alleged that she is the owner of a residential lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 005-2016000582. The lot is bounded on all sides by lots belonging to different owners and thus did not have adequate outlet to the public road, except through a passageway (subject passageway) with right of way declared under Dela Cruz's name.
Sometime in February 2016, Carifio built a residential building on her lot. Dela Cruz fenced his house and installed a steel gate, enclosing the subject passageway and preventing Carifio from traversing any part of it, and blocking Carifio's free access to the public road.
On September 27, 2016, Carifio sent a demand letter to Dela Cruz, demanding the removal of the structure obstructing her free access to the public road, but Dela Cruz refused. Carifio then filed the Complaint, praying that the steel gate be declared a private nuisance, that it be removed at Dela Cruz's expense, and that Dela Cruz be ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees.
In his Answer, Dela Cruz claimed that he fenced his property because there was a violation of his family's privacy due to Carifio's use of the subject passageway. He argued that the contested right of way is not a private nuisance since it is not the sole passageway to the public road, as there is another accessible passageway at the back of Carifio's property.
The RTC ruled in favor of Carifio, and the Court of Appeals denied Dela Cruz's appeal and affirmed the RTC. After the CA denied his Motion for Reconsideration, Dela Cruz filed the present Petition.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as: Is the steel gate constructed by Dela Cruz a nuisance per accidens?
The Ruling
The Court held that the Petition should be denied. It noted that questions of fact are outside the coverage of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is limited to questions of law, and that whether the steel gate is a nuisance per accidens is a question of fact. On this ground alone, the Petition ought to be denied outright. Even resolved on the merits, the Court ruled it should still be denied.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision, dated May 17, 2023, and the Resolution, dated October 4, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 114325 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the total monetary award shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid."
By the Numbers
- TCT No. 005-2016000582 — Carifio's residential lot title
- February 2016 — when Carifio built her residential building
- September 27, 2016 — date of Carifio's demand letter to Dela Cruz
- PHP 50,000.00 — nominal damages awarded by the RTC
- May 17, 2023 — date of the Court of Appeals Decision
- October 4, 2023 — date of the Court of Appeals Resolution
- 6% per annum — legal interest on the total monetary award from finality until fully paid
- CA G.R. CV No. 114325 — the Court of Appeals case number
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that a nuisance is defined under Article 694 of the Civil Code and may be classified as nuisance per se or nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per se is one recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety. A nuisance per accidens depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, its existence being a question of fact, and cannot be abated without due hearing.
The Court found that Dela Cruz obstructed and interfered with Carifio's free passage to the public road by installing the steel gate on the subject passageway, and also impaired her free use of her property. Since the subject passageway has been declared as an easement of right of way, as annotated at the back of the TCTs covering Dela Cruz's properties, Carifio has the right to use it to access the public road.
Although the steel gate was not locked, it was tied with a wire, still requiring Carifio to untie it to access the public road. While there is an alternative way at the back of her property, the RTC found it required Carifio to traverse through several gates belonging to other neighbors. The Court concluded the steel gate is not a nuisance per se, but a nuisance per accidens due to the peculiar circumstances.
On damages, the Court held that nominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated, for the purpose of vindicating that right. It found the RTC's award of PHP 50,000.00 reasonable and, pursuant to Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., imposed six percent per annum legal interest on the total monetary award from finality until fully paid.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 270273, penned by Associate Justice Filomena D. Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.