Short answer. Article 705 gives two remedies against a private nuisance: filing a civil action in court, or abating the nuisance yourself without going to court first. Which one fits depends on the circumstances, since self-help abatement carries its own limits and risks that a court action does not.
What the law says
The remedies against a private nuisance are: (1) A civil action; or (2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Civil Code, Article 705 — Remedies Against Private Nuisance. Read the full provision →
The civil action route
Article 705's first remedy is a civil action — bringing suit in court against whoever is maintaining the nuisance. This is the formal route: a court hears the dispute, determines whether what is being complained of actually qualifies as a nuisance, and can order it stopped or award damages for the harm it caused. Because a court decides the matter, this remedy carries the safeguard of due process for both sides, though it ordinarily takes longer than acting on your own.
Abatement without judicial proceedings
The second remedy Article 705 recognizes is abatement, without judicial proceedings — meaning the person affected may act to remove or stop the nuisance himself, without first securing a court order. This self-help remedy exists because some nuisances cause harm that cannot practically wait for litigation to run its course. It is, by its nature, a more drastic option than filing suit, since it puts the affected person in the position of acting unilaterally against someone else's activity or property.
Why the choice between the two matters
Article 705 offers both remedies as available options rather than requiring one before the other, so the person suffering the nuisance chooses which suits the situation — a formal civil action where a judge weighs the evidence and issues a binding order, or direct abatement where the affected person acts without waiting on the courts. Because self-help abatement departs from the ordinary rule of settling disputes in court, it is understood as the narrower, more exceptional path of the two, aimed only at the nuisance itself rather than as license to use force against people or to take more than removing the nuisance actually requires.
What Article 705 does not tell you
The article names the two remedies but does not, by itself, define what makes something a private nuisance in the first place, or spell out the specific limits within which abatement must be carried out to stay lawful — those rules sit elsewhere in the Code's provisions on nuisance. Before acting on your own to abate what you consider a nuisance, it is worth being clear on whether the situation actually meets the legal definition, since acting outside it can turn a legitimate remedy into a wrong against the other party instead.
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 →