Whenever there is an irritating noise around us, we quickly label it a nuisance. After all, it offends our senses. So should it not be called such?

In one case, residents complained about the noise coming from a school located in their subdivision. They said they were frequently bothered by the loud drums, bugles, megaphones, the instructions shouted by teachers, the cheering of students, etc. This led them to file a case with the trial court for the abatement of the nuisance.

After a trial, however, the court dismissed their action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the homeowners, adjudging the school liable for damages for the nuisance it caused. The school elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

This gave the Highest Court the opportunity to discuss what and when noise becomes a nuisance.

“Notably, the term nuisance is comprehensive enough to embrace all annoyances that interfere with the person, property, or comfort and enjoyment of all citizens. Remarkably, AC Enterprises v Frabelle Properties Corporation highlights that noise is not a nuisance per se and becomes actionable only upon clear proof that it unreasonably interferes with the health or comfort of ordinary individuals:

“The plaintiff must prove that the noise is a nuisance and the consequences thereof. Noise is not a nuisance per se. It may be of such a character as to constitute a nuisance, even though it arises from the operation of a lawful business, only if it injuriously affects the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance.

“In the conditions of present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many necessary occupations. Its presence is a nuisance in the popular sense in which that word is used, but in the absence of statute, noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the listener.

“What those limits are cannot be fixed by any definite measure of quantity or quality; they depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The test is whether rights of property, health, or comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss that goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living, or of holding property, in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses that involve the emission of noise, although ordinary care is taken to confine it within reasonable bounds; or in the vicinity of the property of another owner who, though creating a noise, is acting with reasonable regard for the rights of those affected by it.

“Commercial and industrial activities that are lawful in themselves may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the senses that they render the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable. The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity or volume. It is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable. If the noise does that, it can well be said to be substantial and unreasonable in degree; and reasonableness is a question of fact dependent upon the circumstances and conditions.

“There can be no fixed standard as to what kind of noise constitutes a nuisance. The courts have made it clear that in every case the question is one of reasonableness. What is a reasonable use of one’s property and whether a particular use is an unreasonable invasion of another’s use and enjoyment of his property so as to constitute a nuisance cannot be determined by exact rules, but must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of each case, such as locality and the character of the surroundings, the nature, utility, and social value of the use, the extent and nature of the harm involved, the nature, utility, and social value of the use or enjoyment invaded, and the like.

“Essentially, it is not enough that persons of peculiar temperament, unusual sensibilities, or weakened physical condition may be affected, or that persons of exceptional strength and robustness, or whose faculties have become benumbed, are not disturbed.

“The crucial inquiry is whether the noise materially interferes with the physical comfort of existence, not according to exceptionally refined, uncommon, or luxurious habits of living, but according to the simple tastes and unaffected notions generally prevailing among plain people. The standard depends on what ordinary and reasonable individuals have a right to demand in terms of health and comfort, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

“Simply put, there can be no actionable nuisance if ordinary persons living in the community would not consider the sound as such, even if the idiosyncrasies of a particular member may make the sound intolerable. Ultimately, the noise must be of such character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, which was not established in this case.”

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. 278875 (26 November 2025).