CASE TITLE: Perez vs Madrona

GR # & DATE: GR 184478, March 21, 2012

TOPIC: Nuisance

Facts:

Respondent-spouses Fortunito Madrona and Yolanda B. Pante are registered owners of a

residential property and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 169365 In 1989, respondents
built their house thereon and enclosed it with a concrete fence and steel gate. In 1999,
respondents received a letter from petitioner Jaime S. Perez, Chief of the Marikina Demolition
Office that the fence is a violation against PD 1096 (National Building Code of the Philippines),
PD 772 (Anti-Squatting Law), Programa sa Kalinisan at Disiplina sa Bangketa, RA 7279 (Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992), PD 296 (Encroachment on rivers, esteros, drainage
channels and other waterways), RA 917 (Illegally occupied/constructed improvements within the
road right-of-way)

As response, respondent Madrona sent petitioner a letter stating that the letter of the
petitioner (1) contained an accusation libelous in nature as it is condemning him and his
property without due process; (2) has no basis and authority since there is no court order
authorizing him to demolish their structure; (3) cited legal bases which do not expressly give
petitioner authority to demolish; and (4) contained a false accusation since their fence did not in
fact extend to the sidewalk.

Issue: May the fence be demolished summarily?

Held:

No, the fence may not be demolished summarily. If petitioner indeed found respondents
fence to have encroached on the sidewalk, his remedy is not to demolish the same summarily
after respondents failed to heed his request to remove it. Instead, he should go to court and
prove respondents supposed violations in the construction of the concrete fence. Indeed, unless
a thing is a nuisance per se, it may not be abated summarily without judicial intervention