Short answer. Yes. Civil Code Article 697 says the abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. Once the nuisance has been stopped, you can still pursue compensation for the harm you suffered while it was ongoing.
What the law says
The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
Civil Code, Article 697 — Damages For Past Nuisance. Read the full provision →
Stopping the nuisance and compensating for it are separate questions
Article 697 keeps these two remedies apart on purpose: “the abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.” Getting the nuisance to stop, whether through your own effort, a neighbor's cooperation, or a court order, addresses the ongoing problem. It does nothing on its own to compensate you for what you already suffered while the nuisance was operating — that is a separate claim the article leaves intact.
The relevant period is while it existed
The damages this article protects are tied specifically to the nuisance's “past existence” — the period during which it was actually affecting you, before it was stopped. That covers harm you experienced during that window: property damage, health effects, lost use or enjoyment of your own property, and whatever else the nuisance actually caused you while it was ongoing, regardless of how long ago it ended.
This applies whether the abatement was voluntary or not
Article 697 does not condition your damages claim on how the nuisance came to an end. Whether your neighbor voluntarily stopped the activity, was persuaded to change it, or was compelled to abate it by some other means, none of that erases your separate right to seek compensation for the period it lasted. The manner of abatement affects the nuisance itself, not the damages claim tied to what already happened.
What you need to support this kind of claim
Because the claim covers a period that has already passed, evidence from while the nuisance was ongoing matters — photos, dates, complaints made at the time, medical or repair records, or anything else documenting the harm as it happened rather than reconstructed afterward. The stronger your record of the nuisance's actual effect on you during that window, the more solidly it supports a claim for damages now that the nuisance itself is gone.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Linda Rana vs. Teresita Lee Wong, et al./Sps Rosario and Wilson Uy, et al. vs. Sps. Reynaldo and Linda Rana, G.R. No. 192861 / G.R. No. 192862, June 30, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →