G.R. No. 195166 - Spouses Abella vs. Spouses Abella

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195166)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Relevant events: Feliza Building constructed 1989; Frabella I constructed c.1995; administrative complaints and tests span 1995–2008; civil case filed July 1, 2003 (Civil Case No. 3745‑MN). RTC Decision (Branch 74, Malabon City) dated November 28, 2014 ruled for petitioner. Court of Appeals reversed by Decision dated June 19, 2018 and denied reconsideration on February 18, 2019. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 245438) was denied; the CA decision was affirmed.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution. Statutory and regulatory sources: Article 694, New Civil Code (definition of nuisance); Rule 131, Section 1, Revised Rules on Evidence (burden of proof in civil cases); NPCC Memorandum Circular No. 002, Series of 1980 (ambient noise limits); Makati City Ordinance No. 93‑181 (local noise standards); Presidential Decree No. 984 (environmental protection/ambient standards). Governing procedural principle: Supreme Court’s limited role under Rule 45—review of errors of law, with factual findings of lower courts generally binding except under recognized exceptions.

Short Statement of Issues Reviewed

Whether the noise and hot air from respondent’s blowers constitute an actionable nuisance. 2) Whether petitioner is entitled to temperate and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Trial Evidence for Petitioner

Petitioner presented administrative and investigatory findings and witness testimony alleging intolerable noise and hot air: ocular inspections and multiple noise readings by MMDA, MACEA, DENR and Makati Health officers (tests in 1995, 1996, 2000 and a Makati test in January 2008) reportedly exceeding the 65 dB daytime limit; letters of tenant complaints (not authenticated); testimony of petitioner’s VP and one tenant (Ma. Cristina A. Lee) who testified to persistent noise and hot air affecting use of her unit and causing tenants to keep air conditioners running and avoid balcony doors; MACEA conducted tests and imposed fines; petitioner alleged reduced rental rates and tenant vacancies attributable to the nuisance.

Trial Evidence for Respondent

Respondent showed a history of remedial measures (soundproofing installed in 2000; blower and condenser replacements and roof-deck condensers and duct re‑routing in 2006) and produced more recent independent noise tests (IAA Technologies) deputized by Makati City Health Department with readings of 61.3 dB (Nov. 13, 2008) and 63.4 dB (Nov. 22, 2008), both below the 65 dB standard for commercial areas. Certificates and permits to operate issued by Makati City following testing were also introduced. Some earlier tests identified external noise sources (e.g., Thailand Embassy, traffic) and inconsistent methodologies across tests were noted.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found preponderant evidence of private nuisance: it concluded the 36 blowers generated monophonic, intense noise and hot air producing actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. The court permanently enjoined respondent from operating the 36 blowers and awarded temperate damages (based on alleged rental revenue loss), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding petitioner failed to prove actionable nuisance by a preponderance of evidence. The CA applied established nuisance tests (including the standard that noise must produce “actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities” and that reasonableness depends on locality and circumstances). It emphasized the insufficiency of a single tenant’s testimony to establish the effect on ordinary persons, the reliability of more recent tests showing compliance with local noise limits, and the issuance of permits by the Makati City government as corroborative of acceptable noise levels. The CA deleted the RTC’s injunctive and damage awards.

Standard of Review and Burden of Proof as Applied by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated its limited role under Rule 45 and the general rule that appellate factual findings are binding unless exceptions apply. The Court confirmed the burden in civil nuisance claims rests with the plaintiff to prove the claim by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance means evidence that is more convincing and worthy of belief than the opposition; petitioner failed to meet that burden.

Legal Definition and Test for Actionable Nuisance

Article 694 New Civil Code defines nuisance; jurisprudence (including AC Enterprises v. Frabelle) clarifies that noise is not a nuisance per se. Noise becomes actionable when it injuriously affects property rights, health, or comfort beyond what is reasonably to be expected in the particular locality. The legal inquiry is necessarily fact‑intensive and focused on reasonableness, taking into account locality, character of surroundings, nature and utility of the defendant’s use, extent of harm, and whether annoyances exceed ordinary expectations for the community.

Analysis of Noise Tests and Their Probative Value

The Court examined the multiple noise tests presented: older tests (1995–2005) tended to show readings above 65 dB but suffered methodological inconsistencies, recorded external noise sources, and were conducted under varying conditions and equipment. The Court regarded the November 2008 tests conducted by IAA Technologies (deputized by Makati City Health Department and conducted late evening to minimize ambient noise) as the most reliable: readings of 61.3 dB and 63.4 dB were below the 65 dB daytime limit for commercial areas (NPCC Memo Circular No. 002 and Makati Ordinance No. 93‑181). The Court observed that compliance with regulatory noise limits is not dispositive of nuisance but is a significant corroborative factor supporting that the defendant operated within permissible bounds and exercised reasonable efforts to reduce noise.

Weight of Permits and Licenses Issued by Makati City

The Court stated that local permits and licenses are only corroborative and do not conclusively resolve nuisance questions. Local government findings that regulatory noise standards are met do not substitute for judicial determination of nuisance, and LGUs cannot unilaterally declare a non‑per se nuisance to be actionable. Nonetheless, the Court found that the CA did not hinge its decision solely on permits; rather, permits supported the overall finding that respondent’s operations comported with accepted regulatory limits and that respondent had taken reasonable remedial measures.

Locality and Character of Surroundings Considerations

The Court emphasized that Frabella I Condominium and Feliza Building are situated in the bustling Makati Central Business District where higher ambient noise is expected. The character of the locality — a dense, commercial urban environment with closely situated buildings separated by a 12‑meter road — reduces the degree to which a given level of noise can be deemed unreasonable. The Court applied foreign jurisprudence principles (e.g., Coventry, Kasper) to emphasize that character of locality is determinative in assessing reasonableness.

Whether Noise Caused Injurious Effect on Ordinary Persons

The Court found petitioner’s proof lacking to show that the noise and hot air produced actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities. Petitioner relied primarily on a single te

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195166)

Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Frabelle Properties Corporation (petitioner) challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 19, 2018 and Resolution dated February 18, 2019 in CA-G.R. CV No. 105817, which reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malabon City, Branch 74, Decision dated November 28, 2014.
G.R. No. 245438; Decision penned by Chief Justice Peralta for the Supreme Court First Division (November 03, 2020) reported at 888 Phil. 950; 119 OG No. 3, 409 (January 16, 2023).
Lower-court relief sought by petitioner: permanent abatement of alleged nuisance (cessation of operation of 36 blowers of Feliza Building), damages (temperate and exemplary) and attorney’s fees; RTC granted injunctive relief enjoining respondent from operating the 36 blowers and awarded temperate damages (25%–30% loss of rental earnings), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
CA reversed RTC, finding absence of preponderant evidence of actionable nuisance and deleting damages and fees; petitioner preserved issues on nuisance and entitlement to damages and attorneys’ fees in this petition.

Factual Background

Petitioner Frabelle Properties Corporation is developer/manager of Frabella I Condominium, a 29-storey residential/commercial building at 109 Rada Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City; petitioner owns and leases multiple units.
Respondent AC Enterprises, Inc. owns Feliza Building, a 10-storey commercial/office building along V.A. Rufino Street (formerly Herrera Street), Legaspi Village, Makati City; Feliza Building constructed circa 1989–1990, Frabella I circa 1995.
Geographic relationship: Rada and V.A. Rufino streets run parallel with Rodriguez Street (approx. 12 meters wide) between them; Feliza Building located at the back of Frabella I such that Feliza’s air-conditioning blowers face the rear of Frabella I.
From floors one to nine of Feliza Building, air-conditioning units are served by 36 blowers (four blowers per floor) located outside windows facing Frabella I; only a portion of Feliza’s rear faces Frabella I, remaining portion faces the Thailand Embassy adjacent to Frabella I.
Petitioner’s complaints: respondent’s blowers allegedly emit excessive noise and irritating hot air causing nuisance to petitioner and Frabella I tenants.
Petitioner’s administrative and regulatory actions prior to civil case: letters of complaint to respondent (April 11, 1995; June 6, 1995; August 14, 2000) allegedly ignored; complaint to Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) on March 10, 2001; complaint to Makati City Mayor on March 7, 2002 seeking cancellation of respondent’s business permits; involvement of MMDA and MACEA; various noise inspections and monitoring over time.
Procedural history of civil case: petitioner filed Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages and application for preliminary injunction on July 1, 2003 (Civil Case No. 3745-MN), eventually tried before RTC, Branch 74; after RTC judgment respondent appealed to CA; CA reversed; petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Evidence Presented by Petitioner (Summarized)

Testimony of Consuelo Albutra (Vice President of petitioner): early notice to respondent during Frabella I construction that blowers would affect prospective tenants; sought MMDA and MACEA assistance; MMDA and MACEA ocular inspection found noise intolerable and exceeding allowable 65 decibel standard under Section 78(b) of PD No. 984; DENR noise tests in 1995–1996 and 2000 produced similar results; Makati City Health Officer testing corroborated prior findings.
Claim of rental loss: petitioner alleged rental rate reduced by 25%–30% as tenants vacated due to noise and hot air, though documentary and testimonial proof of causation was contested.
Tenant-witness Ma. Cristina A. Lee: occupant of Unit 9-D whose balcony faced Rodriguez Street; testified to loud noise and hot air from Feliza Building blowers, kept balcony door closed and air-conditioners running; continued occupancy.
Jaime Matias (General Manager, MACEA): MACEA received petitioner’s 1995 complaint, wrote respondent to adopt remedial measures which allegedly were not taken; MACEA sought DENR and Makati City Engineering Office assistance; recorded monitoring and fines imposed in 2001; MACEA-commissioned tests in 2005 by Technical Experts on Environmental Management also found noise exceeded 65 dB.
DENR witness Lemelie Pascua: conducted investigations on August 29, 2000 and September 27, 2000; acknowledged cross-examination admission that tests recorded multiple noise sources (Thailand Embassy, passing cars) and that noise levels already exceeded permissible limits even when Feliza blowers were not operating.
Francisco Cabeltis, Jr. (Sanitary Inspector): conducted ocular inspection on March 2, 2002 with another inspector; found intolerable noise by sensory observation without special equipment.
Documentary/material evidence: series of older noise pollution tests from 1995, 1996, 2000 and later years reported to show exceedance of allowable noise standards (with variations in methodology and administration); complaint letters from tenants presented but authenticity not adequately proven.

Evidence Presented by Respondent (Summarized)

Testimony of Raulito Dumangon (authorized representative): Feliza Building operated since circa 1990 without prior complaints prior to Frabella I construction; respondent voluntarily implemented improvements in 2000 and 2006 (installation of two-inch polyurethane soundproofing on all AC units, replacement of blowers and condensers on floors 6–10, installation of five condenser fans on roof deck, rerouting ducts to divert air toward V.A. Rufino Street).
Operational chronology: newly-installed roof-deck condensers commenced operation on June 28, 2006; Office of the Building Official of Makati issued Certificate of Operation permitting operation.
City health and independent testing: Makati Health Office initially issued closure order based on a sound reading, which respondent contested; City Health Officer engaged independent sound expert IAA Technologies to perform further measurements; IAA tests on November 22, 2008 (1:00 a.m. test) measured 63.4 dB; earlier IAA test on November 13, 2008 measured 61.3 dB—both within Makati Ordinance No. 93-181 daytime limit of 65 dB; Makati City Health Department issued permit to operate following IAA reports.
RTC-ordered testing: RTC issued Order dated January 14, 2008 directing Makati City Health Officer to conduct noise pollution test on January 18, 2008; Environment Health and Sanitation Division of Makati carried out test and prepared report; Sanitation Inspector Felipe Albayda, Jr. testified that a Makati test showed Feliza Building noise exceeded allowable limit.
Expert testimony: Dar Quintos, owner of IAA Technologies and audio/acoustics expert, testified regarding tests, methodology and results; IAA described as independent entity deputized by City Health Department, using proper equipment and performing late-evening tests to minimize external noise.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malabon City, Branch 74

RTC Decision dated November 28, 2014: found preponderant evidence that the 36 blowers of Feliza Building generated noise and hot air directed toward Frabella I Condominium that annoyed and offended petitioner and its tenants; characterized the noise as monophonic and intense and hot air as producing actual physical discomfort and annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable.
RTC relief and awards: permanently enjoined respondent from turning on and/or operating all 36 blowers of air-cooled condensers; awarded temperate damages calculated from alleged 25%–30% loss of rental earnings, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Post-judgment motions: respondent’s motion for reconsideration and motion for inhibition