Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sitchon v. Aquino
Sitchon v. Aquino
SITCHON v. AQUINO
G.R. No. L-8191, February 27, 1956.
Facts:
This is a consolidation of six class suits against the City Engineer of Manila who
threatened to demolish the houses of the petitioners, upon the ground that said houses
constitute public nuisances. The petitioner’s cases had similar facts involving houses built on
public roads and on riverbeds all situated in the City of Manila. The petitioners paid monthly
rental/concession fees to a collector of the city treasurer “without prejudice to the order to
vacate”.
The petitioner’s argued that in trying to demolish their perspective houses without notice
and hearing, the city engineer sought to deprive them of their property without due process of
law, apart from the fact that, under Articles 701 and 702 of the new Civil Code, the power to
remove public nuisances is vested in the district health officer, not in the respondent city
engineer.
The Court of First Instance ruled that the houses of all the petitioners constitute public
nuisance as defined by section 1112 of Ordinance No. 1600 and by Article 694 paragraphs 4
and 5 of the Civil Code; and that the City Engineer of the City of Manila is the official authorized
by Article 1112 of Ordinance No. 1600 of the City of Manila and Article 699, paragraph 3 of the
Civil Code to abate said public nuisance and charge the expenses thereof to petitioners. Hence,
this petition.
Issue:
WON the houses of the petitioners may be demolished without notice and hearing?
Held:
Yes, the houses built on public streets and riverbeds are considered as public
nuisances.
ART. 694 provides that, “A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of
others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or
morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or
any body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.” and ART. 695 provides that,
“Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or
any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage
upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing
definition.”
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. As such, the summary removal
thereof, without judicial process or proceedings may be authorized by the statute or municipal
ordinance, despite the due process clause.
The police power of the sate justifies the abatement or destruction, by summary
proceedings, of whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance; and the legislature may
authorize the summary abatement of a nuisance without judicial process or proceeding.