Rana v. Wong, [G.R. No. 192861-62] Case Digest

 

Rana v. Wong,

G.R. No. 192861-62

 

 

Facts:

Teresita Lee Wong (Wong) and Sps. Ong are co-owners pro-indiviso of a residential land situated in Peace Valley Subdivision, Lahug, Cebu City, abutting a 10-meter wide subdivision road (subject road). On the opposite side of the subject road, across the Wong-Ong property, are the adjacent lots of Sps Uy and Sps Rana.

Sps. Rana elevated and cemented a portion of the subject road that runs between the Rana and Wong-Ong properties (subject portion) in order to level the said portion with their gate. Sps. Rana likewise backfilled a portion (subject backfilling) of the perimeter fence separating the Rana and Uy properties without erecting a retaining wall that would hold the weight of the added filling materials.

Wong, Sps. Ong, and Sps. Uy (Wong, et al.) filed a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages against Sps. Rana before the RTC. RTC found that the backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property, thereby constituting a nuisance. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property constitute nuisance.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

SC finds that the same is not a nuisance per se. By its nature, it is not injurious to the health or comfort of the community. It was built primarily to facilitate the ingress and egress of Sps. Rana from their house which was admittedly located on a higher elevation than the subject road and the adjoining Uy and Wong-Ong properties.Since the subject portion is not a nuisance per se(but actually a nuisance per accidensas will be later discussed) it cannot be summarily abated.