Facts: This case is about the construction of the Torre de Manila in Taft Avenue. The petitioner in this case averred that Torre de Manila will rise behind Rizal Park, clearly dwarfing the statue of our hero and ruin the line of sight of the Rizal Shrine from the frontal Roxas Boulevard vantage point. The court however decided that there actually is no law prohibiting such construction and that Torre de Manila is neither contrary to law, endanger the public health of safety nor its construction contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. It was also not considered by the court as nuisance as defined in the Civil Code.
Issue: WON constru of DMCI Homes is a nuisance.
Held: No. It was explained in the case that there are two kinds of nuisance. The first one would be nuisance per se, is when an act is a direct menace to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity. While the second one is nuisance per accidens. A nuisance per accidens is determined based on its surrounding conditions and circumstances. These conditions and circumstances must be well established, not merely alleged. It is a question of fact where it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a proper tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing in law constitutes a nuisance.
In this case, the SC is not a trier of facts but the RTC. Hence, petition was dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment