Frabelle Properties Corp. vs. AC Enterprises, Inc.

Noise constitutes an actionable nuisance only when it produces actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable, with the reasonableness of the use determined by the locality, character of surroundings, nature and utility of the use, extent of the harm, and whether the annoyance exceeds what is ordinarily expected in the particular community.

Frabelle Properties Corporation developed Frabella I Condominium, a 29-storey mixed-use building in Legaspi Village, Makati City. AC Enterprises, Inc. owns Feliza Building, a 10-storey commercial structure located approximately 12 meters behind Frabella I, constructed five years earlier in 1989. The rear of Feliza Building faces Frabella I, with 36 air-conditioning blowers positioned on its exterior walls directing exhaust and noise toward the condominium. Petitioner alleged that since 1995, these blowers generated excessive noise and heat, causing discomfort to tenants and reducing rental values, despite respondent's installation of soundproofing materials in 2000 and replacement of equipment in 2006.

• Nature of the Properties: Frabella I Condominium, owned and managed by petitioner, stands 29 storeys with residential and commercial units at 109 Rada Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City. Feliza Building, owned by respondent, is a 10-storey commercial structure on V.A. Rufino Street, situated behind Frabella I with only Rodriguez Street (approximately 12 meters wide) separating the two. Both buildings operate in the Makati Central Business District.
• The Alleged Nuisance: From 1995 onwards, petitioner complained that 36 air-conditioning blowers on Feliza Building's exterior facing Frabella I emitted monophonic, intense noise and hot air, allegedly causing physical discomfort and reducing rental income by 25% to 30%.
• Administrative Complaints: Prior to the civil suit, petitioner filed complaints with the Pollution Adjudication Board (March 2001) and the Makati City Mayor (March 2002), seeking injunctive relief and cancellation of business permits.
• Remedial Measures: Respondent installed soundproofing polyurethane layers on all units in 2000, replaced blowers and condensers on floors six through ten in 2006, and installed re-routing ducts to direct air toward V.A. Rufino Street. The Makati City Building Official issued a Certificate of Operation for the modified system in 2006.
• Noise Testing History: Multiple tests yielded conflicting results. DENR tests in 1995-1996 and 2000, and a Makati City Health test in January 2008, indicated noise levels exceeding 65 decibels. However, tests conducted by IAA Technologies on November 13, 2008 and November 22, 2008, deputized by the Makati City Health Department, measured 61.3 and 63.4 decibels respectively—below the 65-decibel limit under NPCC Memorandum Circular No. 002 and Makati City Ordinance No. 93-181. The DENR witness admitted that external noise from traffic and adjacent buildings contributed to earlier readings.
• Trial Court Proceedings: Only one tenant, Ma. Cristina A. Lee, testified regarding the noise, stating she kept her balcony closed and air-conditioning running constantly. Petitioner presented unauthenticated complaint letters from other tenants. The RTC found for petitioner, ordering permanent closure of the blowers and awarding damages.
• Appellate Proceedings: The Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner failed to prove actionable nuisance under the standard requiring injury to ordinary sensibilities, and noting the lack of evidence linking rental losses to the noise.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that preponderance of evidence established nuisance through multiple noise tests exceeding 65 decibels, testimony of tenant Lee, and complaints to administrative agencies. It argued that Lee's testimony represented the sensibilities of all similarly situated tenants, making presentation of every tenant unnecessary.
• Weight of Permits: Petitioner argued the Court of Appeals erred in considering business permits and licenses issued by Makati City as indicative of absence of nuisance, asserting that such permits do not preclude judicial determination of nuisance.
• Damages: Petitioner claimed entitlement to temperate damages for lost rental income, exemplary damages for respondent's continued refusal to remedy the nuisance despite complaints, and attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

• Failure of Proof: Respondent countered that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving actionable nuisance by preponderance of evidence, as the noise did not produce actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities.
• Reliability of Tests: Respondent argued that petitioner's reliance on obsolete tests (1995-2005) was misplaced, whereas the most recent and methodologically sound tests (November 2008) demonstrated compliance with noise standards.
• Character of Locality: Respondent argued that the Makati Central Business District's commercial character rendered the noise reasonably expected and tolerable, not constituting unnecessary harm.
• Damages: Respondent maintained that absent proof of nuisance, no damages could be awarded; petitioner failed to prove causal connection between the blowers and alleged rental losses.

• Actionable Nuisance: Whether the noise and hot air emitted by respondent's air-conditioning blowers constitute an actionable private nuisance.
• Award of Damages: Whether petitioner is entitled to temperate and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

• Actionable Nuisance: No actionable nuisance was established. The burden of proof rested on petitioner to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that the noise produced actual physical discomfort and annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. The testimony of a single tenant, whose ordinary sensibilities were not established, was insufficient to meet this standard. While compliance with noise level limits (65 decibels) is not dispositive of nuisance, the most reliable evidence—the November 2008 tests conducted by independent experts using proper methodology—showed noise levels within permissible limits. Considering the locality (Makati Central Business District) and character of surroundings, where commercial activity and associated noise are expected, the noise did not exceed what might reasonably be expected nor cause unnecessary harm.
• Award of Damages: Petitioner is not entitled to damages. In the absence of actionable nuisance, respondent committed no wrongful act, and the situation constitutes damnum absque injuria—damage without injury. Temperate damages require a wrongful act and pecuniary loss capable of estimation; exemplary damages require bad faith or malice; attorney's fees require statutory grounds under Article 2208. None were established.

• Actionable Noise Nuisance — Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, a nuisance includes anything that annoys or offends the senses. However, noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality, producing actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities and rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. The determination of reasonableness depends on: (1) the locality and character of surroundings; (2) the nature, utility, and social value of the use; (3) the extent and nature of the harm; and (4) whether the annoyance exceeds what is ordinarily expected in the community. Mere violation of noise level standards does not automatically create nuisance, nor does compliance automatically negate it, though such evidence is corroborative.
• Burden of Proof in Civil Cases — The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish the claim by a preponderance of evidence (the greater weight of evidence worthy of belief). This burden never shifts, though the burden of evidence may shift during proceedings.
• Damnum Absque Injuria — Damage without wrong (damnum absque injuria) affords no cause of action. There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong and damage resulting therefrom; wrong without damage or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of action.
• Effect of Government Permits on Nuisance — The issuance of business permits and licenses by local government units does not preclude judicial determination of nuisance, nor can local governments declare something a nuisance unless it is a nuisance per se. Planning permission or permits merely remove bars imposed by planning law but do not legalize what would otherwise be a nuisance.

• "The test is whether rights of property, of health or of comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of property of another owner who, though creating a noise, is acting with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by it." — Establishing the standard for actionable noise nuisance.
• "The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable." — Articulating the ratio for noise nuisance.
• "Persons who live or work in thickly populated business districts must necessarily endure the usual annoyances and of those trades and businesses which are properly located and carried on in the neighborhood where they live or work. But these annoyances and discomforts must not be more than those ordinarily to be expected in the community or district, and which are incident to the lawful conduct of such trades and businesses. If they exceed what might be reasonably expected and cause unnecessary harm, then the court will grant relief." — On locality and reasonable expectations.
• "To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong." — On damnum absque injuria.

• AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corporation, 537 Phil. 114 (2006) — Controlling precedent establishing the three-part test for actionable nuisance involving the same parties; followed in applying the standard of "ordinary sensibilities" and "reasonable limits" based on locality.
• Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., 148-B Phil. 204 (1971) — Distinguished; the Court found nuisance in that case due to medical evidence proving physical harm and noise levels significantly exceeding ambient sound, unlike the present case where medical evidence was absent and noise levels were within permissible limits.
• Coventry v. Lawrence, [2014] UKSC 13 — Cited for the principle that the grant of planning permission does not legalize a nuisance and that planning authorities cannot deprive property owners of rights to object to nuisances without compensation.
• Rattigan v. Wile, 445 Mass. 850 (2006) — Cited for the principle that the character of the locality is determinative, and that defendant's activities must be considered when assessing the character of the locality; also cited for the requirement that the number of persons affected and magnitude of industry are relevant to the standard of ordinary people.
• Kasper v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 291 Mass. 24 (1933) — Followed for the rule that the character of the locality is a circumstance of great importance in determining noise nuisance, and that noise must be unreasonable under all circumstances, not merely disagreeable.
• Tortorella v. H. Traiser & Company, 284 Mass. 497 (1933) — Followed for the rule that loss of rental value or failure to secure tenants, standing alone, falls short of proving noise unreasonable in extent or constituting a nuisance.
• Stevens v. Rockport Granite Company, 216 Mass. 486 (1914) — Cited for the standard that the inquiry is whether the noise materially interferes with the physical comfort of existence according to the simple tastes and unaffected notions generally prevailing among plain people, not according to exceptionally refined or uncommon habits.

• Article 694, Civil Code — Defines nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which injures or endangers health or safety, annoys or offends the senses, shocks defies or disregards decency or morality, obstructs public highways, or hinders use of property.
• Article 2194, Civil Code — Provides that the responsibility for quasi-delicts is demandable only for acts and omissions involving fault or negligence; basis for requiring wrongful act for damages.
• Article 2208, Civil Code — Enumerates instances where attorney's fees may be awarded; held inapplicable as none of the grounds were proven.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Defines temperate damages as pecuniary loss suffered but incapable of exact estimation; requires wrongful act.
• Section 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence — Defines burden of proof as the duty of a party to present evidence to establish a claim by the amount required by law; provides that this burden never shifts.
• Presidential Decree No. 984 — The Pollution Control Law; vests the National Pollution Control Commission with power to set ambient standards and recognizes local governments' authority to set higher standards.
• NPCC Memorandum Circular No. 002, Series of 1980 — Sets maximum allowable noise levels of 65 decibels for heavy industrial/urban areas during daytime.
• Makati City Ordinance No. 93-181 — Local ordinance setting maximum allowable noise level of 65 decibels for primarily commercial areas.

Caguioa, Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ.