PEREZ vs.

MADRONA
MANGAKO, KENNETH C
 Whether or not the writ of injunction
issued is valid against the summary
ISSUE abatement for a thing considered as a
nuisance per accidens.
Rules
• Article 2217 of the Civil
Code
• Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v.
Municipality of Tarlac
• PD 296, RA 7279, PD 772,
PD 1096 & RA 917 as
amended by Section 23,
PD. No. 17, DO No. 4
Series of 1987
Analysis
Fortunito Madrona is a
registered owners of a property
in Greenheights, Marikina and
covered by a TCT, enclosing it
with a concrete fence and steel
gate. In 1999, He received a letter
from Jaime Perez, of Marikina
Demolition Office, giving him 7
days to remove the fence due to
several violations of the law.
RTC – Madrona being lawful
owner of the subject property, is
entitled to the peaceful and open
possession of every inch of their
property and petitioner’s threat
to demolish the concrete fence
around the property is
tantamount to a violation of his
rights. The fence is NOT a
nuisance per se.
CA – Affirmed RTC
Analysis
JAIME PLAZO -
PETITIONER
PD 296 – Encroachment
ondrainage canals
RA 7279 – Urban Devt and
Housing Act of 1992
PD 772 – Anti-Squatting Law
PD 1096 – Nat’l Bldg Code
RA 917 as amended by Section
23, PD. No. 17, DO No. 4 Series
of 1987 – Illegal construction of
fences
FORTUNITO MADRONA -
RESPONDENTS
Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v.
Municipality of Tarlac –
Suffice it to say that in the
abatement of nuisances the
provisions of the Civil
Code must be observed
and followed. This
appellant failed to do
Article 2217 of the Civil
Code – suffered anxiety
and sleepless nights
Conclusion

For injunction to issue, two

requisites must concur: first, there
must be a right to be protected and
second, the acts against which the
injunction is to be directed are
violative of said right. Here, the two
requisites are clearly present: there is
a right to be protected, that is,
respondent’s right over their
concrete fence which cannot be
removed without due process; and
the act, the summary demolition of
the concrete fence, against which the
injunction is directed, would violate
said right.
Conclusion

If petitioner indeed found

respondent’s 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.

Writ of injunction issued is valid