Disputes over trees that overhang, drop debris, damage structures through roots, or pose a risk of falling are among the most common neighbor conflicts in the Philippines. These cases are governed primarily by the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), particularly Articles 679–707 on nuisances, Articles 19–21 on abuse of rights, and the general provisions on quasi-delicts (Articles 2176–2194) and damages.

The law strikes a balance between the tree owner’s property rights and the affected neighbor’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his own property. Philippine jurisprudence consistently holds that while a landowner may plant whatever trees he wishes on his land, he may not do so in a manner that causes unnecessary injury to his neighbor.

1. Encroaching Branches and Roots (Article 679, Civil Code)

This is the most straightforward and most frequently invoked provision.

Article 679 states:

“If the branches of any tree should extend over a neighboring estate, tenement, garden or yard, the owner of the latter shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar as they may spread over his property.

If it be the roots of a neighboring tree which penetrate the land of another, the latter may cut them off himself within his property.”

Key points from jurisprudence and practice:

The right is absolute. The affected owner does not need to prove damage or nuisance; mere encroachment is sufficient.
For branches: The neighbor must first demand (preferably in writing, via barangay or notarized letter) that the tree owner cut them. Only if the tree owner refuses or neglects may the neighbor cut them himself, but only up to the property line.
For roots: The neighbor may cut them himself without prior demand, but only within his own property and without unnecessarily damaging the tree.
The cutting must be done in a reasonable manner. Malicious or excessive cutting can make the cutter liable for damages or malicious mischief (Revised Penal Code, Art. 329).

Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Tilar v. Tilar, G.R. No. 192987, 14 March 2018, and earlier cases) have consistently upheld the absolute character of this right.

2. Nuisance Proper (Articles 694–707, Civil Code)

A tree or its parts may constitute a private nuisance when it:

Injures or endangers the health or safety of others (e.g., dead or decaying tree likely to fall, poisonous fruits accessible to children);
Annoys or offends the senses (constant falling leaves clogging gutters, foul-smelling fruit rot);
Hinders or impairs the use of property (roots cracking foundation, walls, or pavement; branches scraping roof during typhoons).

Distinction between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens:

Nuisance per se: unlawful in itself (very rare for trees).
Nuisance per accidens: becomes a nuisance due to location, manner of maintenance, or circumstances (almost all tree cases fall here).

A tree that is healthy and properly maintained is generally not a nuisance simply because it sheds leaves seasonally or blocks a view (there is no right to view or ancient lights doctrine in Philippine law unless an easement was constituted).

However, a tree that is manifestly dangerous (leaning precariously, hollow trunk, severe root heaving causing structural damage) is a nuisance, and the owner’s continued refusal to address it constitutes bad faith or abuse of right.

3. Liability for Damage Caused by Falling Trees or Branches

The tree owner is liable under several possible theories:

(a) Quasi-delict (Article 2176) – if damage is caused by fault or negligence (failure to prune, failure to remove obviously dead tree).

(b) Abuse of right (Article 19–21) – when the owner knowingly maintains a dangerous tree and refuses reasonable requests to abate the danger.

(c) Nuisance (Article 697) – the person injured by the past existence of the nuisance may still recover damages even after abatement.

(d) Strict liability in some cases – jurisprudence has applied presumptive fault when a tree falls on a neighbor’s property without typhoon or force majeure, especially if the tree showed visible signs of decay (see Napolere v. CA, G.R. No. 179365, 26 June 2013).

If the tree falls due to typhoon or earthquake (vis major), the tree owner is generally not liable unless prior negligence is proven (e.g., he was repeatedly warned the tree was rotten).

4. Remedies Available to the Aggrieved Neighbor

A. Extrajudicial Abatement (Self-Help) – Limited

Cutting encroaching roots himself (Art. 679).
Trimming overhanging branches himself only after demand and refusal (and only up to the property line).
Self-help must be exercised reasonably. Excessive cutting exposes the cutter to counterclaim.

B. Barangay Conciliation (Mandatory)

All disputes between parties residing in the same municipality or city must first undergo barangay conciliation (P.D. 1508, now Sections 399–422, Local Government Code of 1991, as amended by R.A. 7160).

Failure to file barangay complaint or obtain Certificate to File Action renders subsequent court case dismissible on ground of non-compliance with condition precedent.

C. Judicial Remedies (after barangay level)

Action to Abate Nuisance (with prayer for damages and/or permanent injunction)
- Filed in the Regional Trial Court (principal relief incapable of pecuniary estimation).
- May include prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to compel immediate cutting or removal of dangerous tree.
Action for Damages (quasi-delict or abuse of right)
- May be filed in MTC (if damages ≤ ₱2,000,000 in areas outside Metro Manila as of 2025 jurisdictional amendments) or RTC.
Action for Injunction under Rule 58, Rules of Court
- Often combined with abatement case.
- TRO (72 hours) or preliminary injunction possible upon showing of imminent danger.
Accion Reivindicatoria or Quieting of Title (rarely, if roots or fallen tree permanently occupy land)

D. Criminal Complaint (rare but possible)

Malicious mischief (Art. 327–331, Revised Penal Code) if neighbor deliberately causes tree or branch to fall.
Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property (if tree falls due to gross negligence).

5. Evidence Commonly Required

Photographs and videos (before and after)
Barangay blotter or summons
Engineer’s or arborist’s report on structural damage or tree condition
Demand letters (sent via notary or barangay)
Proof of repair costs (receipts, estimates)
Witnesses (neighbors, barangay officials)

6. Practical Tips for the Aggrieved Party

Always document everything in writing and with photos.
Send a formal demand letter (preferably notarized) citing Article 679 and/or nuisance provisions.
File barangay complaint immediately – it is fast (15–30 days) and free.
If the tree is clearly dangerous, request assistance from the barangay tanod or city/municipal engineering office (they can sometimes issue notices under local ordinances).
In subdivisions, check first with the homeowners’ association – many have tree maintenance rules and can impose fines.

7. Defenses Commonly Raised by Tree Owners

The tree was planted decades ago (prescription does not run against Article 679 right).
Normal seasonal shedding is not nuisance.
Damage was caused by typhoon (force majeure).
The complaining neighbor’s own construction weakened his own foundation.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that tolerance for years does not extinguish the right under Article 679.

Conclusion

Philippine law provides clear, strong, and relatively swift remedies for nuisance trees and damage caused by neighbors’ trees. The combination of the absolute right under Article 679 for encroachment and the nuisance/abuse-of-right doctrines for dangerous or damaging trees gives the aggrieved neighbor powerful tools.

In practice, most cases are resolved at the barangay level once the tree owner realizes the clarity of the law. When they are not, courts almost invariably rule in favor of the party seeking abatement when encroachment or real danger is proven.

The guiding principle remains Article 19 of the Civil Code: every person must, in the exercise of his rights, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Planting and maintaining trees is a right; doing so in a way that unnecessarily injures one’s neighbor is an abuse of that right.