Title
Frabelle Properties Corp. vs. AC Enterprises, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 245438
Decision Date
Nov 3, 2020
Frabelle Properties alleged Feliza Building's AC blowers caused excessive noise and hot air, constituting nuisance. SC ruled no actionable nuisance, denying damages and fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 245438)

Trial Court Findings

The RTC (Branch 74, Malabon) found preponderant evidence of private nuisance: continuous, monophonic noise and hot air caused actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities. It permanently enjoined operation of the 36 blowers and awarded temperate damages (25–30% loss of rent), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Findings

The CA reversed, holding that petitioner failed to prove actionable nuisance by a preponderance:

  1. One tenant-witness could not represent the sensitivity of all occupants.
  2. Recent noise tests (November 2008) by an independent expert showed readings within allowable limits.
  3. Licenses and permits granted by Makati City corroborated compliance.
    It deleted injunctive relief and damages.

Issues Presented

I. Existence of an actionable nuisance
II. Entitlement to temperate/exemplary damages and attorney’s fees

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Rule 45 confines SC review to errors of law; factual findings stand unless in conflict. Here, the CA’s and RTC’s factual conclusions clashed, warranting resolution on the merits.

Applicable Legal Standards on Nuisance

Under Art. 694, nuisance is any act or condition that injures health, offends senses, or impairs property use. Noise alone becomes actionable when it “produces actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities” beyond what is reasonable in the locality (AC Enterprises v. Frabelle Properties). Reasonableness depends on circumstances: locality, utility of use, extent of harm.

Evaluation of Noise Measurements

Numerous tests (1995–2008) yielded inconsistent results due to varied methodology and interference from traffic and nearby structures. The SC found the November 2008 tests by IAA Technologies most reliable: independent expert, proper equipment, conducted at night to minimize external noise. Readings of 61.3 dB and 63.4 dB fell below the 65 dB commercial-area limit. Compliance with these standards supported the absence of unreasonable intrusion.

Consideration of Locality and Surroundings

Legaspi Village, Makati’s central business district, is inherently noisy. Air-conditioning units are a normal feature in a tropical, high-density commercial zone. A 12-meter separation made some sound inevitable but not necessarily unreasonable.

Assessment of Actual Impact

Petitioner relied on a single tenant’s testimony regarding discomfort. No proof established that her sensitivity represented “ordinary sensibilities,” nor were there credible medical or statistical data on health harm or widespread foul impact. Alleged loss of rental revenue lacked

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.