Short answer. When a civil action is brought over a public nuisance, it must be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. Article 701 of the Civil Code places that responsibility on the local chief executive, not on any individual resident who happens to be annoyed by the nuisance.
What the law says
If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
Civil Code, Article 701 — Who Files The Civil Action. Read the full provision →
The mayor brings the civil action
A public nuisance affects a community or a considerable number of people — a blocked public road, a polluting factory, an unsafe structure over a plaza. Article 701 assigns the civil action over it to a public official: If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor. The rationale is that a wrong against the public at large is vindicated by the public's representative. The mayor, as local chief executive, is the proper party to sue in the community's name.
Why not any resident
Because a public nuisance harms the general public, the law does not let every affected resident file the civil action in the community's name; that would invite a flood of overlapping suits over the same nuisance. Channeling the civil action through the mayor keeps the public remedy coherent and accountable. It reflects a broader principle: a purely public wrong is redressed through public authority, so the office charged with the locality's welfare takes the lead in going to court against the nuisance.
Where a private person still has rights
This does not leave a resident powerless. The law distinguishes the public remedy from a private one: a person who suffers a special injury from a public nuisance — harm different in kind from that felt by the general public — may have his own cause of action for that particular damage. A homeowner whose specific property is directly harmed, for instance, is not limited to waiting for the mayor. Article 701 governs the civil action brought to abate the public wrong itself; it does not erase separate remedies grounded on a distinct personal injury.
The limits of the provision
Article 701 answers who commences the civil action against a public nuisance; it does not define what counts as a public nuisance, nor rule out the other routes the law provides, including administrative abatement by authorities and, in some cases, summary abatement. It also does not decide the merits — whether the thing complained of is truly a nuisance is proven in the case itself. Because the correct remedy depends on whether the nuisance is public or private and whether you suffered special injury, it is worth confirming your standing with counsel before acting.
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.
- The City Government of Caloocan vs. Carmel Development Inc, G.R. No. 240255, January 25, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ferdinand A. Cruz vs. Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon (deceased), Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City, G.R. No. 170404, September 28, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →