G.R. No. 222821 . August 09, 2017.
NORTH GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, V. ATTY. NARCISO MORALES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Atty. Narciso Morales, a resident of North Greenhills Subdivision, owns a house adjacent to McKinley Park, an open space owned and operated by the North Greenhills Association, Inc. (NGA). For over three decades, Morales maintained a personal side door opening directly into the park. In 2003, NGA constructed a pavilion with a public restroom alongside the wall separating Morales’s property from the park, effectively blocking his side access. Morales filed a complaint with the HLURB, alleging the construction violated his right of access, PD 957, and the park’s deed of donation requiring it to remain an open area, and that the restroom was a nuisance. NGA countered that as absolute owner, it had the right to develop the park and that no easement of right of way could be acquired by prescription.
The HLURB Arbiter ordered the removal of the pavilion and the relocation of the restroom. The HLURB Board modified this, ordering only the restroom’s relocation away from residents’ walls. The Office of the President affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the OP’s ruling, characterizing the restroom as a nuisance per accidens due to health risks and upholding Morales’s access right, noting the door’s long existence negated NGA’s security concerns.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the orders that: (1) recognized Atty. Morales’s entitlement to an unbridled access to the park through his side door, and (2) compelled NGA to relocate the restroom constructed within the park.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision on both points. On the issue of access, the Court held that NGA, as the registered owner of the park, enjoys the fundamental right of ownership under Article 428 of the Civil Code, including the right to enclose or fence its property. Morales’s use of a side door for 33 years did not ripen into a legal easement of right of way, as such an easement cannot be acquired by prescription when the use is merely tolerated by the owner. The Deed of Donation to NGA explicitly granted it control to regulate use under its own conditions. Therefore, NGA acted within its rights in constructing improvements that incidentally obstructed Morales’s private access.
Regarding the restroom, the Court found the CA and lower bodies erred in declaring it a nuisance per accidens based solely on its proximity to Morales’s house. A nuisance per accidens requires proof of actual injury or substantial annoyance to the community or a considerable number of persons. Morales’s complaints about potential odors and health risks were speculative and not substantiated by clear evidence of actual damage or a finding that the structure endangered public health. The restroom was built for the benefit of park users, and its construction within NGA’s own property was a legitimate exercise of ownership rights. The orders for its relocation constituted an unwarranted intrusion into NGA’s property rights without legal basis.