G.R. No. 166744. November 2, 2006.
SCRA Citation: 506 SCRA 625
DOCTRINE:
Private
and public nuisance; definition –
The
term “nuisance” is so comprehensive that it has been applied to
almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the
citizens, either in person, property, the enjoyment of property, or
his comfort; A private nuisance is one which violates only private
rights and produces damage to but one or a few persons while a
nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise of public
right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a
common injury, an unreasonable interference with the right common to
the general public.
In
this case, the noise generated by an airconditioning system is
considered a private nuisance.
Noise
emanating from air-con units not nuisance per se –
Noise
becomes actionable only when
it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of
the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the
listener; Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of
especially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an
actionable nuisance.
Whether or not the noise is a nuisance is an issue to be resolved by
the courts.
Test
to determine noise as a nuisance
–
The
test
is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so
injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is
subjected to a loss [i.e.
Actual Physical Discomfort]which
goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of
living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact
devoted to uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary
care is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds; or in the
vicinity of property of another owner who, though creating a noise,
is acting with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by
it.
Action
to abate private nuisance; incapable of pecuniary estiation
– an
action to abate private nuisance, even wehere the plaintiff asks for
damages is one incapable of pecuniary estimation
FACTS:
AC
enterprises (Petitioner) is a
corporation owns a 10-storey building in Makati City. Frabelle
(Respondent) is a condominium corporation who's condominium
development is located behind petitioner. Respondent complained of
the 'unbearable” noise emanating from the blower of the
air-conditioning units of petitioner.
ISSUES:
(1)
Is it a nuisance as to be resolved only by the courts in the due
course of proceedings or
a
nuisance per
se?
(2)
Is an action for abatement of a private nuisance, more specifically
noise generated by the blower of an air-conditioning system, even if
the plaintiff prays for damages, one incapable of pecuniary
estimation?
(3)
What is the determining factor when noise alone is the cause of
complaint?
HELD:
(1)
It is a nuisance to be resolved only by the courts in the due course
of proceedings; the noise is not a nuisance per
se. Noise
becomes actionable only whenn it passes the limits of reasonable
adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the
maker to the needs of the listener. Injury to a particular person in
a peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will
not render the house an actionable nuisance–– in the conditions,
of present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many
necessary occupations.
(2)
Yes, the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation because the
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money.
(3)
The determining factor is not its intensity or volume; it is that the
noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort
and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities rendering
adjacent property less comfortable and valuable.
