A person injured by a nuisance may bring an action in his own name and in behalf of others similarly affected to abate the same.One who has an interest in the property affected such as the owner thereof or fix interest therein are proper parties as plaintiffs.Possession alone of real estate is sufficient to sustain an action to recover damages from the maintenance of a nuisance by the adjoining property in such manner as to injure the enjoyment of the former.In the present case, respondent made the following allegations in its complaint below:[Every time] the Feliza Building's airconditioning system is turned on, all or a good number of the 36 blowers are made to operate simultaneously. The operation of the Feliza's blowers generates a continuous defeaning unbearable vibrating and stressful noise affecting the tenants of Frabella I Condominium. Hot air is also blasted from the [Feliza Building's blowers to the direction of the Frabella 1 Condominium.x x x xThe tenants occupying the 5th to the 16th floors of the Frabella 1 Condominium facing Feliza 88
Building are directly subjected to a daily continuous intense noise and hot air blast coming from the blowers of the [10-storey] Feliza Building. Some are tenants of plaintiff, who have complained to plaintiff about the matter. Tenants who could not bear the nuisance any longer have vacated their units, and as a result, many units of plaintiff have remained vacant, and unoccupied or uninhabitablethereby depriving plaintiff with rental income that it should have otherwise be receiving.x x x xDefendant did not perform any remedial or rectification works to lower the noise being generated by the blowers;As a consequence of such unbearable, hot air and stressful noise, the occupants of the Frabella I, including the tenants of plaintiff, have been and still are, prevented from enjoying peaceful and comfortable use of their property thereby forcing them to vacate and or to transfer elsewhere.Notwithstanding the foregoing results, repeated requests/demands from the plaintiff and recommendation of the DENR, MACEA and MMDA to abate nuisance, the defendant has ignored and still continues to ignore such requests/demands/recommendation.Appended to respondent's complaint are its letters of demand to the petitioner for the latter to abate the nuisance complained of, as well as the results of the tests conducted by the DENR showing that the noise generated by the blowers of the Feliza Building is beyond the legally allowable level standards under Section 78 of P.D. No. 984.By filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not state a sufficient cause of action for abatement of nuisance and damages, petitioner hypothetically admitted the material allegations of the complaint. A plain reading of the material averments therein and its appendages will readily show that respondent had a cause of action for abatement of a private nuisance and for damages.