ILOILO COLD STORAGE CO. vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL- Nuisance
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
ILOILO COLD STORAGE CO. vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL- Nuisance
City Council cannot, by a mere resolution or motion, declare any particular thing a nuisance which has not theretofore been pronounced to be such by law, or so adjudged by judicial determination.
FACTS:
Plaintiff is the owner of an ice and cold storage plant. Nearby residents made complaints regarding the smoke that the plant emits saying that it was very injurious to their health and comfort. The defendant made investigations and later on passed a resolution which demands that the smokestacks of the said factory be elevated or else the factory operations will be closed or suspended. Plaintiff opposed by filing for injunction.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the resolution alone issued by the municipal council is sufficient to label and abate the supposed nuisance in this case?
RULING: NO.
There are two kinds of nuisances: nuisances per se and per accidens. The former are recognized as nuisances under any and all circumstances. The latter are such only because of the special circumstances and conditions surrounding them. The former may be abated even by private individuals however the latter is different; it needs a determination of the facts which is a judicial function.
The question of nuisance can conclusively be decided, for all legal uses, by the established courts of law or equity alone, and that the resolution of officers, or of boards organized by force of municipal charters, cannot, to any degree, control such decision. City Council cannot, by a mere resolution or motion, declare any particular thing a nuisance which has not theretofore been pronounced to be such by law, or so adjudged by judicial determination.
In the present case it is certain that the ice factory of the plaintiff is not a nuisance per se. It is a legitimate industry, beneficial to the people and conducive to their health and comfort. The resolution is obviously not enough to abate the property of the plaintiff.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- DEL MONTE VS. SUNSHINE SAUCE- Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition -
- FRUIT OF THE LOOM V. FRUIT FOR EVE- Trademark Infringement -
- SUBIDO VS. OZAETA- Registered Land Records -
- TAMIN VS. CA- Abatement of Public Nuisance -
- HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. BALANDAN, et al.- Attractive Nuisance Doctrine -
Additional Law Reading:
ILOILO COLD STORAGE CO. vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL- Nuisance
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
ILOILO COLD STORAGE CO. vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL- Nuisance
City Council cannot, by a mere resolution or motion, declare any particular thing a nuisance which has not theretofore been pronounced to be such by law, or so adjudged by judicial determination.
FACTS:
Plaintiff is the owner of an ice and cold storage plant. Nearby residents made complaints regarding the smoke that the plant emits saying that it was very injurious to their health and comfort. The defendant made investigations and later on passed a resolution which demands that the smokestacks of the said factory be elevated or else the factory operations will be closed or suspended. Plaintiff opposed by filing for injunction.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the resolution alone issued by the municipal council is sufficient to label and abate the supposed nuisance in this case?
RULING: NO.
There are two kinds of nuisances: nuisances per se and per accidens. The former are recognized as nuisances under any and all circumstances. The latter are such only because of the special circumstances and conditions surrounding them. The former may be abated even by private individuals however the latter is different; it needs a determination of the facts which is a judicial function.
The question of nuisance can conclusively be decided, for all legal uses, by the established courts of law or equity alone, and that the resolution of officers, or of boards organized by force of municipal charters, cannot, to any degree, control such decision. City Council cannot, by a mere resolution or motion, declare any particular thing a nuisance which has not theretofore been pronounced to be such by law, or so adjudged by judicial determination.
In the present case it is certain that the ice factory of the plaintiff is not a nuisance per se. It is a legitimate industry, beneficial to the people and conducive to their health and comfort. The resolution is obviously not enough to abate the property of the plaintiff.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- DEL MONTE VS. SUNSHINE SAUCE- Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition -
- FRUIT OF THE LOOM V. FRUIT FOR EVE- Trademark Infringement -
- SUBIDO VS. OZAETA- Registered Land Records -
- TAMIN VS. CA- Abatement of Public Nuisance -
- HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. BALANDAN, et al.- Attractive Nuisance Doctrine -
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 8 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
FRUIT OF THE LOOM V…
FRUIT OF THE LOOM V. CA133 SCRA 405FACTS:1. Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, USA. It is the registrant of the trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM in the Philippine Patent Office and was issu...
Read moreDISSOLUTION OF ATTA…
DISSOLUTION OF ATTACHMENTS OR LIENS AND REGISTRATION THEREOF> Where an attachment or lien is maintained, or discharged or dissolved by any method provided by law, the certificate or instrument for the purpose shall be registered to give effect thereo...
Read moreAUSTRIA-MAGAT V. CA…
AUSTRIA-MAGAT V. CA375 SCRA 556FACTS:Comerciante had 5 children. She then bought a residential house and lot which she donated to her children. The deed contained an acceptance and irrevocability clause. Thereafter she executed a deed of absolute sal...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more