G.R. No. 245438 , November 03, 2020
FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORP., PETITIONER, VS. AC ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Frabelle Properties Corp., owner and manager of Frabella I Condominium, filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance and damages against respondent AC Enterprises, Inc., owner of the adjacent Feliza Building. Petitioner alleged that the 36 blowers from Feliza Building’s air-conditioning units emitted excessive noise and hot air towards the condominium, constituting a nuisance that caused tenant complaints, vacancies, and reduced rental income. Petitioner presented evidence including noise level tests from the MMDA, DENR, and Makati City Health Office purportedly showing violations of allowable decibel limits, alongside testimonies from its vice-president and one tenant.
Respondent countered that it had implemented soundproofing improvements and replaced equipment. It argued that the area was a pre-existing bustling commercial district, that the alleged nuisance was not substantial, and that petitioner failed to prove the noise exceeded legal standards or caused actual damage. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering the abatement of the nuisance and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE

Whether the operation of the air-conditioning blowers constitutes a nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code, warranting abatement and an award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centered on the failure to prove the existence of a legal nuisance. A nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities. The Court emphasized that the character of the locality is a primary consideration; in this case, both buildings are situated in Legaspi Village, Makati City, a long-established, busy commercial area where a certain level of noise from business operations is to be expected.
Petitioner’s evidence was deemed insufficient. The noise level tests were conducted unilaterally or by entities without proven technical expertise, and the results were not properly authenticated or conclusively shown to violate applicable ordinances. The testimony of only one tenant was inadequate to establish a substantial interference affecting ordinary people in the community. The Court found that respondent had undertaken mitigating measures and that petitioner, having constructed its building later in an already developed commercial zone, could not demand a level of silence incompatible with the area’s nature. Consequently, petitioner did not discharge its burden of proof to establish a nuisance by preponderance of evidence. No damages were awarded as no actionable wrong was proven.