Title

Valisno vs. Adriano

Case Decision Date

Valisno sued Adriano for damages after Adriano blocked an irrigation canal
on his land, depriving Valisno of water rights. The Supreme Court ruled
Valisno had an easement of aqueduct under the Civil Code, allowing
continued use of the canal, and remanded for damages assessment.

244 Phil. 419

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. L-37409. May 23, 1988 ]

NICOLAS VALISNO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FELIPE ADRIANO, DEFENDANT-

DECISION

GRINO-AQUINO. J.

This case was certi!ed to this Court by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated August 10,
1973, the sole issue being a question of law and beyond its jurisdiction to decide.

Admitted by the parties in their pleadings and established during the trial on the merits are
the following material facts:

On June 20, 1960, the plainti"-appellant !le against the defendant-appellee an action for
damages docketed as Civil Case No. 3472 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The
complaint alleged that the plainti" is the absolute owner and actual possessor of a 557,949-
square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, and more particularly
described in his Transfer Certi!cate of Title No. NT-16281. The plainti"-appellant Valisno
bought the land from the defendant-appellee's sister. Honorata Adriano Francisco, on June 6,
1959. (Deed of Absolute Sale, Exh. "A".) The land which is planted with watermelon, peanuts,
corn, tobacco, and other vegetables adjoins that of the appellee Felipe Adriano on the bank of
the Pampanga River. Both parcels of land had been inherited by Honorata Adriano Francisco
and her brother, Felipe Adriano, from their father, Eladio Adriano. At the time of the sale of
the land to Valisno, the land was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a canal
about seventy (70) meters long, traversing the appellee's land.

On December 16, 1959, the appellee levelled a portion of the irrigation canal so that the
appellant was deprived of the irrigation water and prevented from cultivating his 57-hectare
land.

The appellant !led in the Bureau of Public Works and Communications a complaint for
deprivation of water rights. A decision was rendered on March 22. 1960 ordering Adriano to
reconstruct the irrigation canal, "otherwise judicial action shall be taken against him under
the provisions of Section 47 of Act 2152 (the Irrigation Act), as amended." Instead of restoring
the irrigation canal, the appellee asked for a reinvestigation of the case by the Bureau of
Public Works and Communications. A reinvestigation was granted.

In the meantime, plainti" Valisno rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own expense because his
need for water to irrigate his watermelon !elds was urgent.

On June 20, 1960, he !led a complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 3472) claiming that he su"ered damages
amounting to P8,000 when he failed to plant his !elds that year (1960) for lack of irrigation
water, P800 to reconstruct the canal on defendant Adriano's land, and PI,500 for attorney's
fees and the costs of suit.

On October 25, 1961, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications reversed the
Bureau's decision by issuing a !nal resolution dismissing Valisno's complaint. The Secretary-
held that Eladio Adriano's water rights which had been granted in 1923 ceased to be enjoyed
by him in 1936 or 1937, when his irrigation canal collapsed. His non-use of the water right
since then for a period of more than !ve years extinguished the grant by operation of law,
hence the water rights did not form part of his hereditary estate which his heirs partitioned
among themselves. Valisno, as vendee of the land which Honorata received from her father's
estate did not acquire any water rights with the land purchased.
In his answer to the damage suit (Civil Case No. 3472), the defendant Felipe Adriano admitted
that he levelled the irrigation canal on his land, but he averred: that neither his late father nor
his sister Honorata possessed water rights for the land which she sold to the appellant; that
he (the appellee) applied for water rights for his land in 1956 and obtained the same in 1958;
and that he had a perfect right to level his land for his own use because he merely allowed
his sister to use his water rights when she still owned the adjacent land. He set up a
counterclaim for P3,000 as damages incurred by him in levelling the land on which the
appellant dug an irrigation canal. P2.000 as actual damages, P3,000 as attorney's fees, and
expenses of litigation.

In a decision dated April 21, 1966, the trial court held that the plainti" had no right to pass
through the defendant's land to draw water from the Pampanga River. It pointed out that
under Section 4 of the Irrigation Law, controversies between persons claiming a right to
water from a stream are within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works and his
decision on the matter is !nal, unless an appeal is taken to the proper court within thirty
days. The court may not pass upon the validity of the decision of the Public Works Secretary
collaterally. Furthermore, there was nothing in the plainti"'s evidence to show that the
resolution was not valid. It dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.

The plainti"'s motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the trial court. The
plainti" appealed to the Court of Appeals which certi!ed the case to Us upon the legal
question of whether the provisions of the Irrigation Act (Act No. 2152) or those of the Civil
Code should apply to this.case.

The plainti"-appellant argues that while the trial court correctly held that the Secretary of
Public Works may legally decide who between the parties is entitled to apply for water rights
under the Irrigation Act, it erred in ruling that the Secretary has authority to hear and decide
the plainti"'s claim for damages for the defendant's violation of his (plainti"'s) right to
continue to enjoy the easement of aqueduct or water through the defendant's land under
Articles 642, 643. and 646 of the Civil Code, which provide:
"Article 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of which he can
dispose shall have the right to make it #ow through the intervening estates, with the
obligation to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon which
the waters may !ller or descend.
"Article 643. One desiring to make use of the right granted in the preceding article is obliged:

"(1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is su$cient for the use for which it is
intended: "(2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least
onerous to third persons:

"(3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner determined by the laws and
regulations.

"Article 646. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as continuous
and apparent, even though the #ow of the water may not be continuous, or its use depends
upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours."The
existence of the irrigation canal on defendant's land for the passage of water from the
Pampanga River to Honorata's land prior to and at the time of the sale of Honorata's land to
the plainti" was equivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue using it, as
provided in Article 624 of the Civil Code:
"Article 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established
or maintained by the owner of both shall be considered should either of them be alienated, as
a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively unless at the time the
ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of
conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution
of the deed. This provision shall also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in
common by two or more persons" (Civil Code)This provision was lifted from Article 122 of
the Spanish Law of Waters which provided:
"Article 1 22. Whenever a tract of irrigated land which previously received its waters from a
single point is divided through inheritance, sale or by virtue of some other title, between two
or more owners. the owners of the higher estates are under obligation lo give free passage to
the water as an easement of conduit for ihe irrigation of the lower estates, and without right
to any compensation therefore unless otherwise stipulated in the deed of conveyance." (Art.
122. Spanish Law of Waters of August 3. 1866.)No enlightened concept of ownership can shut
out the idea of restrictions thereon, such as easements. Absolute and unlimited dominion is
unthinkable, inasmuch as the proper enjoyment of property requires mutual service and
forbearance among adjoining estates (Amor vs. Florentine), 74 Phil. 403).

As indicated in the decision dated March 22. 1960 of the Bureau of Works "the principal issue
involved in this case falls under the subject of servitude of waters which are governed by
Article 648 of the new Civil Code and the suppletory laws mentioned in the cases of Lunod
vs. Meneses (11 Phil. 128) and Osmena vs. Camara (C.A. 380 62773) which are the irrigation
law and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, speci!cally Article 122 thereof.

The deed of sale in favor of Valisno included the "conveyance and transfer of the water rights
add improvements" appurtenant to Honorata Adriano's property. By the terms of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, the vendor Honorata Adriano Francisco sold, ceded, conveyed and transferred
to Dr. Nicolas Valisno all "rights, title, interest and participations over the parcel of land
above-described, together with one Berkely Model 6 YRF Centrifugal Pump G" suction, 6"
discharge 500-1500 GPM, with Serial No. 5415812 and one (1) set of suction pipe and
discharge of pipe with elbow, nipples, #anges and footvalves," and the water rights and such
other improvements appertaining to the property subject of this sale. According to the
appellant, the water right was the primary consideration for his purchase of Honorata's
property, for without it the property would be unproductive.

Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for irrigation purposes, which are
appurtenant to a parcel of land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not
speci!cally mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's easement of necessity in a water
ditch running across the grantors land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a
third person (Watson vs. French, 111 Me 371, 19 CJ. 868-897). The fact that an easement by
grant may also have quali!ed as an easement of necessity does not detract from its
permanency as property right, which survives the determination of the necessity (Benedicto
vs. CA. 25 SCR A 145).

As an easement of waters in favor of the appellant has been established, he is entitled to

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is set aside, and a new one is entered ordering the
appellee to grant the appellant continued and unimpeded use of the irrigation ditch
traversing his land in order to obtain water from the Pampanga River to irrigate appellant's
land. Let the records of this case be remanded to the court a quo for the reception of
evidence on the appellant's claim for damages.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.