“The Supreme Court declared that spouses Calimlim’s structures are public nuisance having been erected in public land”
“THEREFORE, to constitute a nuisance per se, the obstruction must hinder the public use of streets, highways, or sidewalks, or the interference with the safety or property of a person must be immediate. In other words, the perceived danger that the act, omission, establishment, business, or condition of property poses must be of the type that presents an emergency.“ (G.R. 272053, Jan. 14, 2025).
“To the mind of the [Supreme] Court, no less than these types of situations call for the law of necessity. No other standard can be countenanced, for the measure that a nuisance per se calls for is summary abatement – an extreme, if not desperate, measure that calls for exacting circumstances, lest the constitutional guarantee of due process be robbed of its power” (Op. cit.).
Agreeing with the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that spouses Calimlim’s structures are public nuisance having been erected in public land. “
Specifically, it is considered foreshore land defined as ‘the part of the shore which is alternately covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the tide’” (Op. cit.).
“While foreshore land is disposable land unlike streets, sidewalks, or public plazas that are considered beyond the commerce of man, the law sets particular conditions for its authorized use.” “Section 61 of Commonwealth Act 141 as amended, provides that foreshore lands may not be disposed of through any means other than by lease” (Op. cit.).
“To utilize foreshore land, therefore, a qualified applicant will first need to apply for and then enter into a foreshore lease agreement with the DENR. As admitted by spouses Calimlim, their application for a foreshore lease agreement was denied by the DENR. “
For this reason, spouses Calimlim “have no authority to occupy, develop, utilize, or manage the foreshore land upon which their structures illegally stand. In fact, the DENR recognized this illegal occupancy of foreshore land and had consequently issued Notices to Vacate to spouses Calimlim who invariably ignored them” (Op. cit.).
“Worse, the hazardous manner by which spouses Calimlim are operating their business has been especially injurious to spouses Goño and their guests, who have specifically complained about the obnoxious activities… in the area.”
“[T]oilet seeps into the dining area of Villa Alexandra… contribut[ed] to the offensive odor affecting the quality of the air breathed in by spouses Goño, their guests, and other people in the area.”
“As established on record, these people and the adjacent establishments are constantly exposed to the threat of conflagration due to spouses Calimlim’s open-fire kitchen. On one occasion, the fire had nearly engulfed the structures and the nearby areas and was quelled only because spouses Goño were equipped with a fire extinguisher.”
“As for spouses Calimlim’s rest house, it was also erected without the necessary building permit, thus putting in question its structural integrity… Moreover, “the obstruction caused by spouses Calimlim’s structures poses an immediate interference with the safety and property of those concerned, including spouses Goño.”
“As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, spouses Goño exhausted the available remedies available to them by reaching out to the Department of Tourism and the Office of the President. They tried to course their complaint through the local government, but to no avail. They were then constrained to file this civil action on account of the subject public nuisance.”
“In Sitchon v. Aquino, the [Supreme] Court categorically ruled that “houses constructed, without governmental authority, on public streets and waterways, obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said streets and waterways, and, accordingly, constitute nuisances per se, aside from public nuisances” (Op. cit.)
