Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 211356 2014-09-29	CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY VELASCO JR., J.
As jurisprudence elucidates, nuisances are of two kinds: nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. The first is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity. The second is that which depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.[14]
	GR No. 192861 2014-06-30	LINDA RANA v. TERESITA LEE WONG PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisprudence further classifies nuisances in relation to their legal susceptibility to summary abatement (that is, corrective action without prior judicial permission). In this regard, a nuisance "may either be: (a) a nuisance per se (or one which "affects the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity");[50] or (b) a nuisance per accidens (or that which "depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.")[51]