Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Case Digest: Salazar vs. Gutierrez et. al. G.R. No. L-21727 I May 29, 1970


FACTS:
Crispina Salazar is owner of a piece of land bounded on the northeast by Lot 361, on the southeast by Sapang Tuyo, on the southwest by Lot 435, and on the northwest by Lot 433. Ownership of Lot 433 passed to respondent Guillermo Gutierrez by inheritance in 1927, and Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in his name on June 11, 1928. No annotation of any lien or encumbrance affecting the land appears on either title.

Before the present controversy arose, Lot 436 and some of the surrounding estates, including Lot 433, were irrigated with water from Sapang Tuyo, a public stream, flowing through a dike that traversed Lots 431, 434, 433 and 461. The portion of this dike that passed through Lot 433 branched near the boundary between this lot and Lot 434 into a canal which has been existing for more than 30 years and ran across the rest of Lot 433 up to Lot 436. It was with the water flowing through this canal that Lot 436 used to be irrigated.

On February 24, 1953 respondent Damaso Mendoza, a lessee of Lot 433, demolished the said canal, thereby stopping the flow of the water and depriving Crispina Salazar's Lot 436 of the irrigation facilities which it had formerly enjoyed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an easement of aqueduct exist in favour of Salazar.

DECISION:
Salazar is entitled to an easement of aqueduct. It is a reasonable conclusion from the foregoing that the demolished canal supplying water to Lot 436 of the petitioner was merely extension of the system of conduits established long ago, considering that in view of the topography of the area and the proximity of the said lot to the main dike in Lot 433 it was more convenient to make the connection therewith than to draw water directly from Sapang Tuyo. Article 118 of the Spanish Law of Waters allows the creation of a compulsory easement of aqueduct for the purpose of establishing or extending an irrigation system, and there is nothing to the contrary in the Civil Code.

No comments:

Post a Comment