Javellana vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

An easement of water-right-of-way is constituted over the servient estate in favor of the dominant estates where a canal has long supplied salt water to a school fishpond and drained rainwater from school premises and adjacent lands to the river; the servient owner may not unilaterally close the canal or demolish the dike, as doing so impairs the servitude in violation of Article 629 of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 296. Even assuming the servient owner constructed the canal, continuous use for no less than fifteen years creates a positive easement under Article 616 of the New Civil Code.

Marsal & Co., Inc. and Marcelino Florete, Sr. owned a parcel of land adjoining the Iloilo River in Barangay Navais, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, through which a canal ran toward the L. Borres Elementary School and Lot 2344. Ester Javellana, Rolando Demafiles, and Cesar Cruzada were school officials, Antonio Sison was barangay captain of Barangay Navais, and Jose C. Hernani headed the Office of Civil Defense. The dispute implicated the Civil Code provisions on easements, particularly Articles 616 and 629, and Presidential Decree No. 296, which prohibits structures or improvements obstructing the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels.

Marsal & Co., Inc. and Marcelino Florete, Sr. owned a parcel of land adjoining the Iloilo River in Barangay Navais, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, which Florete had acquired from the Maranon family in 1959. The property lay near the L. Borres Elementary School and Lot 2344. A main canal ran from the Iloilo River across the property toward the school, and a canal traversing the school premises continued toward Lot 2344. The defendants in the trial court were Ester Javellana, district supervisor; Cesar Cruzada, head teacher; Rolando Demafiles, practical arts teacher; Antonio Sison, barangay captain of Barangay Navais; and Jose C. Hernani, head of the Office of Civil Defense.

According to defendants’ witnesses, the main canal existed long before Florete acquired the land. Severo Maranon testified that as early as 1948, when he was about six years old, he knew the canal passing through their fishpond from the Iloilo River toward the school; he nearly drowned in it in 1954. Ignacio Gencianeo, 75, a former employee of the Bureau of Public Highways, testified that he used to bathe in the canal near the Iloilo River and last did so in 1937; he was barrio captain when the barrio school was constructed in 1940 on land owned by Lucas Borres. Francisco Regacho, 56, testified that in 1948 his house was beside the canal near the river on land then owned by Buenaventura Maranon; he worked filling sand on the school site in 1940, leased the school fishpond from 1973 to 1977, and worked the main canal in 1948 to keep water flowing to the Maranon fishpond. Antonio Sison, barangay captain since 1954, testified that he first noticed the canal in 1933 when he was eight, that it was about 300 meters long from the river toward the school and Lot 2344, and that Florete did not construct the canal but only made it deeper in 1961. Pedro Maranon executed an affidavit dated May 14, 1979 certifying that since before the war until the land was sold to Florete, a canal existed from the Iloilo River cutting across their property toward the school and through the school premises.

Florete’s own evidence included a letter dated June 26, 1961, embodied in Resolution No. 715 dated June 27, 1961 of the Municipal Board of the City of Iloilo, in which he asked permission to build a canal within the school premises up to Lot 2344. The trial court construed this as a request to make the existing school canal permanent, not to build a canal from the Iloilo River, because the main canal already existed. Florete himself testified that he started from their fishpond traversing the Borres Elementary School and then going to their lot. Defendants presented a blueprint copy of the Cadastral Map, B.L. No. 3, to show that no natural waterway connected the Iloilo River to the fishpond, but Teodoro Simpas, Chief of the Surveys Division of the Bureau of Lands, Region IV, testified that creeks and esteros are delineated in cadastral maps only if they are five or more meters wide or, if less, when there is continuous flow of water as determined by the surveyor. The canal was about three meters wide for the first 100 meters and about two meters wide until Lot 2344, with a length of about 200 meters; salt water from the Iloilo River flowed during high tide, reaching about one-half meter in the main canal and about two feet in the school canal, but ordinarily no water flowed in the school canal. This explained why the canal was not indicated in the 1913 cadastral survey.

Defendants maintained that closing the dike entrance connecting the main canal with the school canal caused flooding of the L. Borres Elementary School premises and its vicinity because the canal also served as an outlet for rain and flood waters to the Iloilo River. Witnesses Gencianeo, Regacho, Maranon, and Sison were unanimous on this point. Plaintiffs’ witness Modesto Emboltorio claimed that floodwater in the school fishpond receded to the Borres property, but the adjacent Borres property was higher in elevation than the school premises, so water could not flow there. Photographs taken on August 24, 1978 and August 15, 1979 showed stagnant floodwaters, and a report dated September 3, 1978 by Carlos G. Brasileno and a 6th Indorsement dated November 7, 1978 by 2nd Asst. City Fiscal Serafin L. Abogado documented the flooding after ocular inspection. The canal supplied salt water to the school fishpond and residents used it for salt-making; the water was fresh and clean as the tide changed, unlike the nearby stagnant and polluted fishpond. The closure deprived the school fishpond and residents of salt water and placed the school and vicinity in danger of flooding.

Plaintiffs claimed they closed the canal because residents threw waste matter and garbage into it, making the water dirty and unsanitary for human use, particularly for salt-making. Defendants showed that the real motivation was that residents engaged in salt-making using plastic bags and competed with plaintiffs’ salt production in Lot 2344. Ester Javellana explained that her letter to Florete did not deny his use of the canal; she meant that plaintiffs could not lay pipes underneath the canal because the school land still belonged to Mr. Borres and the Division Office denied the right of way. She testified that she wrote the letter after learning that a 10-inch or 8-inch rubber pipe was about to be buried in the canal, which would deprive the school fishpond of water and disable the drainage canal. She did not stop or prohibit Florete from continuing to use the canal. Florete did not attend the conference or subsequent invitations. The canal had been closed on July 25, 1978; before that, residents had not experienced flooding in the area or school premises, but thereafter floods occurred in August every year during the rainy season, with stagnant water remaining for days and becoming filthy and a breeding place for mosquitoes.

• Speculative Conclusions / Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners contended that the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision was contrary to law, its conclusions were based entirely on speculations and conjectures, and it acted with grave abuse of discretion because its findings of fact lacked competent evidence.
• Origin and Purpose of the Canal: Petitioners argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that the canal was built by plaintiff-appellant purposely to make water available to its own Lot 2344.
• Dominant Estate: Petitioners argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that plaintiff-appellant had the right of easement upon the lot occupied by the barrio school, making plaintiff-appellant the dominant estate rather than the L. Borres Elementary School.
• Use by Other Parties / Competition: Petitioners argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that the school, in violation of the easement, allowed other parties to use the canal for salt production in competition with plaintiff-appellant’s salt business conducted in Lot 2344.
• Benefit to the School: Petitioners argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that the canal traversing plaintiff’s property never benefited the school and that only after plaintiff built the canal from its fishpond to its other property did the school benefit from water from the river.
• Alternative Drainage: Petitioners argued that the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in holding that aside from plaintiff’s property, another parcel of land—the Borres property—was more than adequate to provide the drainage sought by defendants.

• Question of Law / Review of IAC Conclusions: Whether the Supreme Court may review the correctness of the Intermediate Appellate Court’s conclusions drawn from facts that were admittedly proven, such correctness being a question of law.
• Existence and Origin of the Canals: Whether the main canal and the canal traversing the L. Borres Elementary School existed long before Florete acquired the property, or were constructed by Florete in 1961.
• Dominant and Servient Estates: Whether an easement or servitude of water-right-of-way was constituted on Florete’s property as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres Elementary School and nearby lands as dominant estates.
• Impairment of Easement: Whether Florete’s closure of the dike entrance and demolition of portions of the main dike impaired the servitude in violation of Article 629 of the Civil Code.
• Violation of Presidential Decree No. 296: Whether the closure and demolition violated Presidential Decree No. 296, which prohibits structures or improvements obstructing the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels.
• Damages: Whether plaintiffs are liable to defendants for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

• Question of Law / Review of IAC Conclusions: Yes. The correctness of conclusions drawn from admitted facts is a question of law that the Supreme Court may pass upon; the facts were admittedly proven, so no factual review was required.
• Existence and Origin of the Canals: The canals existed long before Florete acquired the property; if at all, Florete merely caused the portion traversing the school premises to be made deeper. The Intermediate Appellate Court could not disown the trial court’s findings after quoting them with approval.
• Dominant and Servient Estates: The L. Borres Elementary School and nearby lands were the dominant estates, while Florete’s property was the servient estate. An easement of water-right-of-way had been constituted, and even assuming Florete constructed the canal in 1961, continuous use for at least fifteen years created a positive easement under Article 616.
• Impairment of Easement: Yes. Private respondents violated Article 629 of the Civil Code when they closed the canal entrance and demolished portions of the main dike, impairing the use of the servitude by the dominant estates.
• Violation of Presidential Decree No. 296: Yes. The closure and demolition transgressed Presidential Decree No. 296 because the canal served not only to supply salt water to the school fishpond but also as a drainage channel for rainwater from adjacent lands to the Iloilo River.
• Damages: Yes. The Regional Trial Court’s judgment, including the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs to each defendant, was reinstated.

• Question of Law / Review of IAC Conclusions: The Intermediate Appellate Court relied heavily on the trial court’s findings of fact, even quoting them in its decision, but reached different conclusions. Petitioners questioned the correctness of those conclusions. Because the facts were admittedly proven, the determination of the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the pleadings is a question of law that the Supreme Court is authorized to pass upon. The review therefore did not require re-examination of the factual record.
• Existence and Origin of the Canals: The trial court found that the main canal had existed long before Florete acquired the land from the Maranons. The testimonies of Severo Maranon, Ignacio Gencianeo, Francisco Regacho, and Antonio Sison established the canal’s existence and use from as early as 1933, 1937, 1940, and 1948. Pedro Maranon’s affidavit dated May 14, 1979 certified that since before the war until the sale to Florete, a canal existed from the Iloilo River cutting across their property toward the school and through the school premises. Florete’s June 26, 1961 letter, embodied in Resolution No. 715 dated June 27, 1961, asked permission to build a canal within the school premises up to Lot 2344, not from the Iloilo River, indicating that the main canal already existed. Florete himself testified that he started from their fishpond traversing the Borres Elementary School and then going to their lot. The cadastral map did not negate the canal because Teodoro Simpas testified that creeks and esteros are delineated only if five or more meters wide or, if less, when there is continuous flow; the canal was about three meters wide for the first 100 meters and about two meters wide until Lot 2344, with salt water only during high tide and no ordinary continuous flow. The Intermediate Appellate Court could not disown the trial court’s findings after quoting them with approval.
• Dominant and Servient Estates: The main canal traversing Florete’s property served as the passage of salt water from the Iloilo River to the school fishpond and as an outlet and drainage channel for rainwater from the school premises and adjacent lands to the Iloilo River. An easement or servitude of water-right-of-way was thus constituted on plaintiffs’ property as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres Elementary School land and nearby lands as dominant estates. Even assuming Florete constructed the canal in 1961, an easement of water-right-of-way had already been constituted because since then it had been in continuous use for no less than fifteen years by the school fishpond and adjacent lands. A positive easement under Article 616 of the New Civil Code was thereby created, and plaintiffs had no right to terminate it unilaterally.
• Impairment of Easement: Article 629 of the New Civil Code provides that the owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. If the easement becomes very inconvenient or prevents important works, repairs, or improvements, it may be changed at the servient owner’s expense, provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and no injury is caused to the dominant estate or those entitled to use the easement. Plaintiffs did not recognize or follow this law. They closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions of the main dike, impairing the use of the servitude by the dominant estates. They therefore violated Article 629.
• Violation of Presidential Decree No. 296: Presidential Decree No. 296 enjoins any person, natural or juridical, to demolish structures or improvements that tend to obstruct the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels. The canal did not merely supply salt water to the school fishpond; it also served as a drainage channel for rainwater from adjacent lands to the Iloilo River. Before the canal was closed, residents had not experienced flooding in the area or school premises. After plaintiffs closed it on July 25, 1978, residents experienced flooding in the school premises particularly in August every year during the rainy season. Rainwater accumulated without an outlet, remained stagnant for days, and became filthy and a breeding place of mosquitoes. Plaintiffs’ claim that they closed the canal because residents threw waste and garbage into it was belied; the showing was that residents engaged in salt-making using plastic bags and competed with plaintiffs’ salt production. Regardless of motive, the act violated the law on easement and Presidential Decree No. 296.
• Damages: The trial court held plaintiffs liable to defendants for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Plaintiffs had closed the canal, deprived the school fishpond and residents of salt water, impeded the flow of rain and flood waters, and unjustifiably refused and failed to heed defendants’ plea to reopen it. Worse, plaintiffs instituted the action against defendants, dragging them into a court suit that caused worries, serious anxiety, fright, and mental anguish. Defendants were forced to secure private counsel because they were sued also in their private capacities. The trial court found that plaintiffs filed the action in bad faith to preempt appropriate legal action by authorities, aware that the City Fiscal and City Barangay Secretariat had recommended immediate action to reopen the canal. Damages could be adjudged only to defendants, not to the school fishpond, school PTA, school children, or residents who were not parties. The Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Trial Court judgment, including these awards.

• Easement of Water-Right-of-Way — A real servitude constituted over a servient estate allowing water to pass through for the benefit of dominant estates. In this case, the canal from the Iloilo River traversing Florete’s property supplied salt water to the L. Borres Elementary School fishpond and drained rainwater from the school premises and adjacent lands to the river; the school and nearby lands were therefore dominant estates, and Florete’s property was the servient estate.
• Positive Easement by Continuous Use for Fifteen Years — Under Article 616 of the New Civil Code, a positive easement may be created by continuous use for no less than fifteen years. Even assuming Florete constructed the canal in 1961, continuous use by the school fishpond and adjacent lands for at least fifteen years created the easement.
• Prohibition Against Impairment of Servitude — Article 629 of the New Civil Code provides that the owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude. If the easement becomes very inconvenient or prevents important works, repairs, or improvements, it may be changed at the servient owner’s expense, provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and no injury is caused to the dominant estate. Florete violated this provision by closing the canal and demolishing the dike.
• Presidential Decree No. 296 — Duty Not to Obstruct Water Flow — Presidential Decree No. 296 enjoins any person, natural or juridical, to demolish structures or improvements tending to obstruct the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels. The canal served as a drainage channel; its closure violated the decree.
• Question of Law from Admitted Facts — The correctness of conclusions drawn from facts that are admittedly proven is a question of law. Because the facts were not disputed, the Supreme Court could review the Intermediate Appellate Court’s legal conclusions without becoming a trier of facts.
• Liability for Bad-Faith Suit and Damages — Plaintiffs’ bad-faith institution of the action, after unjustifiably closing the canal and refusing to reopen it, justified the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs to the defendants who acted in their official capacities for public good.

• "Even assuming that it was plaintiff Florete Sr. who constructed the subject canal in 1961, an easement of water-right of way had already been constituted on the property of the plaintiffs as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres Elementary School premises and the nearby lands as the dominant estates." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the creation of the easement even under Florete’s own theory of construction.
• "Private respondents thus violated Art. 629 of the Civil Code when they closed the entrance of the canal and demolished portions of the main dike thus impairing the use of the servitude by the dominant estates." — This is the core ruling on the violation of the servitude.
• "The findings of the trial court are amply supported by a careful and exhaustive consideration of all available documentary and oral evidence including ocular inspections as it was in the best position to do so. Its legal conclusions are likewise unassailable." — This passage explains why the Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions.
• "In view of the well-settled rule that this Court is not a trier of facts, We find no plausible reason not to sustain the trial court in its findings of fact and the legal conclusions drawn from these findings." — This passage articulates the standard of review applied to the trial court’s findings.

• Article 616, New Civil Code — Cited for the creation of a positive easement. The Court applied it by holding that even assuming Florete constructed the canal in 1961, continuous use for no less than fifteen years by the school fishpond and adjacent lands created a positive easement.
• Article 629, New Civil Code — Provides that the owner of the servient estate cannot impair the use of the servitude and may change its place or manner only at his expense, provided he offers another equally convenient place or manner without injury to the dominant estate. Florete violated this provision by closing the canal entrance and demolishing portions of the main dike.
• Presidential Decree No. 296 — Enjoins any person, natural or juridical, to demolish structures or improvements tending to obstruct the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels. The canal served as a drainage channel, and its closure violated the decree.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.