Nuisance Per Se vs Nuisance Per Accidens

Easement of Right of Way

March 3, 2026

Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

March 3, 2026

Tags

🔎 Search 66,000+ AI-Enhanced SC Decisions...

📖 Full Court Text

SUBJECT: Nuisance Per Se vs Nuisance Per Accidens
I. INTRODUCTION
This memo outlines the critical distinction between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens under Philippine Civil Law. Understanding this difference is fundamental for determining the appropriate legal remedies, procedural requirements, and the legality of summary abatement.
II. THEORETICAL BASIS
A nuisance per se is an act, occupation, or structure that is a nuisance at all times and under all circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings, because it is inherently unlawful, dangerous, or offensive. Conversely, a nuisance per accidens is an act, occupation, or structure that is not inherently a nuisance but becomes one due to its location, surroundings, or the manner in which it is conducted or managed, causing actual injury or inconvenience.
III. APPLICABLE STATUTES

Article 694, Civil Code: Defines nuisance generally.

Article 695, Civil Code: Classifies nuisances as public or private.

Article 699, Civil Code: Enumerates remedies against a public nuisance.

Article 700, Civil Code: Specifies that abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings is not allowed if it is a nuisance per accidens.

Article 701, Civil Code: Allows private persons to abate a public nuisance summarily under specific conditions.

IV. CASE ANALYSIS

AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corp., G.R. No. 166740, November 2, 2007: The Supreme Court held that an illegal construction on public property, such as a sidewalk, is a nuisance per se. Being inherently unlawful and an obstruction to public use, it can be summarily abated without judicial intervention.

Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-18390, August 29, 1964: The Court ruled that while a power plant is a legitimate business, its operation (e.g., noise, smoke, vibrations) can become a nuisance per accidens if it causes substantial annoyance or injury to neighboring property owners. Such a nuisance requires judicial declaration before abatement.

V. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

Nuisance Per Se: May be summarily abated by local government units or, under strict conditions, by private persons, without prior judicial declaration. This is because its unlawful character is self-evident.

Nuisance Per Accidens: Requires a judicial declaration that it is indeed a nuisance before any abatement can be legally undertaken. Due process demands that the alleged offender be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, as the nuisance character is not inherent but depends on factual circumstances.

VI. DOCTRINAL SYNTHESIS
The fundamental distinction lies in the inherent legality and nature of the act or structure. Nuisance per se is unlawful from its inception, justifying immediate, non-judicial abatement. Nuisance per accidens, while potentially lawful in itself, becomes objectionable due to its context or operation, thus necessitating judicial intervention to establish its nuisance character and protect due process rights before any remedial action.
VII. CONCLUSION
The proper classification of a nuisance as either per se or per accidens is paramount. It dictates the available remedies, the necessity of judicial proceedings, and the extent of authority for summary abatement. Misclassification can lead to unlawful actions, violation of due process, and potential liability for wrongful abatement.
VIII. RELATED JURISPRUDENCE

City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-17783, May 29, 1967.

Monteverde v. Generoso, G.R. No. L-18414, March 30, 1964.

Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. CFI of Negros Occidental, G.R. No. L-33423, November 28, 1975.

Sitchon v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-1122, February 27, 1947.

Pampanga Sugar Development Co., Inc. v. CFI of Pampanga, G.R. No. L-34756, September 28, 1972.