So there really is such thing. I thought the professor was kidding when he put in the class syllabus under the topic Limitations on ownership and other property rights something called "attractive nuisance". Aside from me, I couldn't think of any other example (shet, baka tamaan ako ng kidlat. Haha). To add to my incredulity, Article 695 of the Civil Code provides for only two types of nuisance -- public and private.
In the case Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Guillermo Balandan (G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952), the doctrine is explained as follows:
"One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises... The principle reason for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children."
The doctrine is a common law invention so it's not in our civil law.
The above explanation brings to mind some enticing appliances likely to put reckless individuals to danger if used without caution. But they're part of the anatomy so I guess it's not within the contemplation of the law. *grin*