NUISANCE AND MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP

Only the city or municipal mayor can file a civil action to abate a public nuisance. (2017 BAR)

• TRUE

• FALSE

Answer explanation

False. Article 703 of the New Civil Code provides that a private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is especially injurious to himself. Thus, a private person may file a civil action to abate a public nuisance that is especially injurious to him.

What is the prescriptive period for filing an action for revocation of a donation based on acts of ingratitude of the done? (2011 BAR)

• 5 years from the perfection of the donation.

• 1 year from the perfection of the donation.

• 4 years from the perfection of the donation.

• Such action does not prescribe.

Things appropriable by nature which are without an owner, such as animals that are the object of hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandoned movables, are acquired by __________.

Which one is not an essential requisite of "Occupation"

• The thing must be with an owner

• There must be a seizure or apprehension

• There must be the intent to appropriate

• The property seized must be susceptible of appropriation

Which of the following is a valid ground for the revocation of a donation?

• The donee has committed an act of ingratitude

• The donor has changed their mind

• The donation was made in a public ceremony

• The donee is a minor

________ is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.

Answer explanation

Art. 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.

______ is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. 

Which one is not a requisite of Nuisance?

• Injures or endangers the health or safety of others

• Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality

• 1. Annoys or offended the senses 

• 1. Hinders or impairs the use of property

• None

There is only a nuisance if the annoyance outweighs the utility to the actor and to society as a whole is what Doctrine of ___________ _______ is.

In the case of Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. vs. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, Jun 13, 1952, what is the court's ruling in deciding the case?

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is not liable for the death of Mario Balandan under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The Supreme Court, through Justice Bengzon, held that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally does not apply to bodies of water, whether artificial or natural, unless there is an unusual condition or artificial feature other than the water itself. The Court cited numerous American cases supporting this view, noting that ponds, reservoirs, pools, streams, and similar bodies of water are not considered attractive nuisances.

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is liable for the death of Mario Balandan under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The Supreme Court, through Justice Bengzon, held that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally does apply to bodies of water, whether artificial or natural, unless there is an unusual condition or artificial feature other than the water itself. The Court cited numerous American cases supporting this view, noting that ponds, reservoirs, pools, streams, and similar bodies of water are considered attractive nuisances.