2025 Philippine Bar Exam Coverage: Is “Nuisance” Under Civil Law Included? An all-in-one reference for Bar candidates
Abstract
The 2025 Bar Examinations will again follow the outcome-based, competency-focused syllabus that the Supreme Court first rolled out in 2023. Civil Law remains one of the four examination days and is allotted 25 % of the total Bar score (tied with Political & International Law). Within Civil Law, “Nuisance” is expressly listed under the Property subset of topics. This article explains (1) where nuisance appears in the official syllabus, (2) what examinees are expected to know, and (3) the substantive and remedial law—statutory text, doctrines, and jurisprudence—surrounding nuisance in Philippine law.
I. Where Nuisance Sits in the 2025 Syllabus
| Cluster | Sub-cluster | Item | Bar Descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Law | Property | Nuisance (Arts. 694-707, Civil Code) | Definition, kinds, elements, abatement & damages, administrative regulation |
Key takeaway: The Bar Bulletin for 2025 retains the same Civil-Law outline released by the 2024 Chair; nuisance is therefore subject to examination—typically in the form of a situational essay or a multiple-choice question on abatement or classification.
II. Core Statutory Text (Civil Code)
| Article | Gist |
|---|---|
| 694 | Defines nuisance; makes distinction between public & private. |
| 695-696 | Enumerate specific public nuisances and who may sue. |
| 697-699 | Abatement without judicial proceedings; requisites and safeguards. |
| 700-703 | Judicial abatement (injunction), damages, recovery of costs. |
| 704-707 | Criminal aspect (if any), local regulation, and residual remedies. |
III. Classification & Doctrines
| Dimension | Sub-types | Bar focus |
|---|---|---|
| By extent of injury | Public (affects community) vs. Private (affects one or few) | Standing, venue, reliefs |
| By nature | Per se (inherently unlawful) vs. Per accidens (becomes nuisance by circumstance) | Requirement of prior judicial declaration for per accidens |
| By remedy | Abatement ipso jure vs. judicial abatement vs. administrative closure | Procedural due-process limits |
Essential Elements (Private Nuisance)
- Substantial interference with use or enjoyment of land;
- Reasonableness test (balancing utility vs. harm);
- Causation traceable to defendant’s act or omission;
- Actual damages or threat thereof.
Typical Bar Pitfalls
- Confusing public nuisance (can be summarily abated by LGU) with private nuisance (requires notice and demand).
- Treating nuisance per accidens as automatically abatable—remember that a court order or LGU ordinance is necessary.
IV. Remedies & Procedure
| Remedy | Who may sue / act | Requirements | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-help abatement | Injured party (private) or LGU (public) | Notice, least-intrusive means | Liability if excessive force |
| Civil action for damages | Owner, possessor, or occupant | 4-year prescriptive period (Art. 1146) | Often coupled with injunction |
| Injunction (Rule 58) | Same as above | Prima facie right + urgent need | Bond discretionary |
| Criminal prosecution | People of the Philippines | If acts constitute RPC offenses (e.g., alarms & scandals, Art. 155) | Can proceed independently |
| Administrative closure | LGU, DOH, DENR, HLURB/PAB | police power; requires notice & hearing | Source of many Bar hypos |
V. Intersections With Other Bar Subjects
| Subject | How nuisance overlaps |
|---|---|
| Torts & Damages | As an abuse of right (Art. 19-21) or quasi-delict (Art. 2176); remedies include moral & exemplary damages. |
| Special Civil Actions | Abatement suits are often filed as accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana with an injunction. |
| Local Government Code | Sections 16 & 455(b)(3)(vi) empower LGUs to declare and abate nuisances. |
| Special Laws | (a) Sanitation Code (PD 856) on health nuisances; (b) Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003) on dumping; (c) Clean Air Act (RA 8749) for pollution-related nuisances. |
VI. Leading Jurisprudence You Must Cite
| Case | GR No. & Date | Bar-relevant point |
|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan Manila Dev’t Auth. v. Belmont Construction | G.R. No. 135247, Jan 23 2002 | Difference between police-power abatement and taking under eminent domain. |
| Reyes v. Valley Mountain Estates | G.R. No. 106875, Mar 11 1999 | Noise and dust as private nuisance; award of moral damages. |
| City of Manila v. CIAC | G.R. No. 169661, Apr 4 2007 | Local ordinances may summarily abate nuisance per se; due-process safeguards still apply. |
| PT Ampil Transport v. CA | G.R. No. 119654, Oct 13 1999 | Oil spill: overlapping civil, criminal, and administrative liabilities. |
| Acebedo Optical v. CA | G.R. No. 100303, Sept 28 1992 | Billboard as nuisance; visual blight considered substantial interference. |
VII. Bar-Exam Strategy & Memory Aids
“4-4-4 Rule”
- 4 elements, 4 years prescriptive period, 4 principal remedies.
Mnemonic “PAPI” for remedies: Prohibition (injunction) - Abatement - Prosecution (criminal) - Indemnity.
Spot the trick: If the fact pattern involves public inconvenience but only a few plaintiffs sue, issue of standing arises—cite Art. 695 in relation to Rule 3, Sec. 3 (class suit).
Answer-format tip: Start with classification → discuss elements → apply facts → conclude on remedy.
Likely essay angle: Balance between property rights and police power—expect to write on due-process limits of summary abatement.
VIII. Conclusion
Yes—nuisance is squarely included in the 2025 Civil-Law syllabus. Mastery requires more than memorizing Articles 694-707; candidates must integrate property concepts, tort doctrine, local-government police power, and procedural rules. Familiarity with landmark cases anchors theoretical rules in real-world contexts—a frequent demand of recent outcome-based Bar questions. With this guide, you now have a consolidated roadmap to tackle any nuisance-related problem the 2025 Bar may throw your way.
Ad meliora et ad majora!