Calma v. Pleasantville

Calma v. PleasantvilleArchibald Jose T. ManansalaFactsThe spouses Restituto and Pilar Calma have been residents of Pleasantvilles subdivision City Heights Phase II since 1976. Later, the spouses Fabian and Nenita Ong purchased a lot fronting that of the Calmas sometime in 1979-1980, where they built buildings as their residence and place of business.Facts (continued)On 25 April 1981, Calma wrote the president of the Association of Residents of City Heights, Inc. complaining that the compound of the Ongs was being utilized as a lumber yard and that a "loathsome noise and nervous developing sound" emanating therefrom disturbed him and his family and caused them and their son to suffer nervous tension and illness. FactsThe Associations President replied that they had referred his complaint to Fabian Ong who had already taken immediate action by ordering the transfer of the lumber cutting machine and by instructing his laborers not to do any carpentry or foundry works in the early morning or afternoon and in the evening. However, Mr. Calma was unsatisfied with the measures taken by the association and Fabian Ong. He wrote Pleasantville on 17 June 1981 and asked them abate the nuisance emanating from the compound of the Ongs.Facts However, Pleasantville did not reply on the Calmas request. Thus, on July 28, 1981, they filed a complaint for damages against the Ongs and Pleasantville at Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No. 16113) alleging that that if Pleasantville was not negligent in selling the lot to the Ongs and it did not fail to have the alleged illegal constructions by the Ongs demolished (which violated the contractual provision that the land shall be used only for residential purposes), the nuisance could not have existed and he and his family would not have sustained damage caused by it. Facts On 31 August 1981, Restituto Calma also filed with the National Housing Authority (NHA) a complaint for "Violation of the Provisions, Rules and Regulations of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree under Presidential Decree No. 957," claiming almost the same issue in the civil case.FactsHe also prayed that PLEASANTVILLE be ordered to abate the nuisance and/or demolish the offending structures, refund the amortization payments made on their lot, and to provide them and their son with medication until their recovery. He also prayed that PLEASANTVILLE be penalized under Sec. 39 of P.D. No. 957 and that its license be revoked.

Issues1st Issue: Whether structures in the property of the Ongs constituted a nuisance?2nd Issue: Whether the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission was valid in ordering Pleasantville to take measures in prevention and abatement of the nuisance?Legal ProvisionsSec. 39 of PD 957 - Penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided, That in the case of corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the President, Manager or Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.HeldThe Supreme Court affirm the Court of Appeals finding, that HSRCs conclusion that the activities being conducted and the structures in the property of the Ongs constituted a nuisance was not supported by any evidence. The Solicitor General himself admits in his comment before Court of Appeals that the Commissions decision did not have finding of nuisance. HeldApparently, on the basis of position papers, the said Commission assumed the existence of the nuisance without receiving evidence on the matter, to support its order to have the alleged nuisance abated or be given preventive actions.