Valisno vs. Adriano

An apparent sign of easement—such as an existing irrigation canal—between two estates formerly owned by the same person and maintained prior to the alienation of either estate constitutes a title under Article 624 of the Civil Code, entitling the vendee of the dominant estate to the continued and active enjoyment of the easement of aqueduct, even if the original statutory water rights have been extinguished by non-use.

Nicolas Valisno purchased a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, from Honorata Adriano Francisco on June 6, 1959. The land adjoined that of Honorata's brother, Felipe Adriano, on the bank of the Pampanga River. Both parcels had been inherited by Honorata and Felipe from their father, Eladio Adriano. At the time of the sale, Valisno's land was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a canal approximately seventy meters long traversing Felipe's land. The deed of absolute sale expressly included the conveyance of "water rights and improvements" appurtenant to the property.

On June 6, 1959, Nicolas Valisno purchased from Honorata Adriano Francisco a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-16281. The deed of absolute sale expressly conveyed all rights, title, and interest in the land, together with a Berkeley centrifugal pump and appurtenant equipment, and "the water rights and such other improvements appertaining to the property." The land, planted with watermelon, peanuts, corn, tobacco, and other vegetables, adjoined the property of Honorata's brother, Felipe Adriano, on the bank of the Pampanga River. Both parcels had been inherited by Honorata and Felipe from their father, Eladio Adriano. At the time of the sale, Valisno's land was irrigated by water drawn from the Pampanga River through a canal approximately seventy meters long that traversed Felipe's land.

On December 16, 1959, Felipe levelled a portion of the irrigation canal, depriving Valisno of irrigation water and preventing him from cultivating his 57-hectare land. Valisno filed a complaint with the Bureau of Public Works and Communications for deprivation of water rights. On March 22, 1960, the Bureau rendered a decision ordering Adriano to reconstruct the irrigation canal, failing which judicial action would be taken under Section 47 of Act 2152 (the Irrigation Act). Instead of complying, Adriano sought a reinvestigation, which was granted. In the meantime, Valisno rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own expense due to the urgent need to irrigate his watermelon fields.

On June 20, 1960, Valisno filed a complaint for damages in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, docketed as Civil Case No. 3472, claiming ₱8,000 for his failure to plant his fields that year for lack of irrigation water, ₱800 to reconstruct the canal on Adriano's land, and ₱1,500 for attorney's fees and costs of suit. In his answer, Adriano admitted levelling the canal but averred that neither his late father nor his sister possessed water rights for the land sold to Valisno; that he himself had applied for and obtained water rights for his land in 1956 and 1958; and that he had merely allowed his sister to use his water rights when she still owned the adjacent land. He set up a counterclaim for damages totalling ₱8,000.

On October 25, 1961, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications reversed the Bureau's decision, issuing a final resolution dismissing Valisno's complaint. The Secretary held that Eladio Adriano's water rights, granted in 1923, had ceased to be enjoyed in 1936 or 1937 when the irrigation canal collapsed, and that non-use for more than five years had extinguished the grant by operation of law. The water rights therefore did not form part of Eladio's hereditary estate, and Valisno, as vendee of Honorata's share, acquired no water rights with the land. The trial court, in its decision dated April 21, 1966, dismissed both the complaint and counterclaim, holding that under Section 4 of the Irrigation Law, controversies over water rights were within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works, whose decision was final unless appealed to the proper court within thirty days, and that the court could not collaterally pass upon the validity of the Secretary's resolution.

• Applicability of the Civil Code: Petitioner argued that while the trial court correctly held that the Secretary of Public Works may decide who is entitled to apply for water rights under the Irrigation Act, it erred in ruling that the Secretary had authority to hear and decide his claim for damages arising from the defendant's violation of his right to continue enjoying the easement of aqueduct through the defendant's land under Articles 642, 643, and 646 of the Civil Code.
• Apparent Sign of Easement: Petitioner maintained that the existence of the irrigation canal on the defendant's land for the passage of water from the Pampanga River to the vendor's land, prior to and at the time of the sale, was equivalent to a title for the vendee to continue using it, as provided in Article 624 of the Civil Code.
• Water Rights as Primary Consideration: Petitioner asserted that the water right was the primary consideration for his purchase of the property, as without it the property would be unproductive, and that the deed of sale expressly conveyed the water rights and improvements appurtenant to the land.

• No Water Rights Inherited or Transferred: Respondent averred that neither his late father nor his sister possessed water rights for the land sold to the appellant, and that he himself had applied for and obtained water rights for his own land in 1956 and 1958.
• Right to Level His Own Land: Respondent maintained that he had a perfect right to level his land for his own use, as he had merely allowed his sister to use his water rights when she still owned the adjacent land.
• Counterclaim for Damages: Respondent set up a counterclaim for ₱3,000 as damages incurred in levelling the land on which the appellant dug an irrigation canal, ₱2,000 as actual damages, ₱3,000 as attorney's fees, and expenses of litigation.

• Governing Law: Whether the provisions of the Irrigation Act (Act No. 2152) or those of the Civil Code should apply to this case.
• Existence of Easement: Whether the existence of the irrigation canal on the defendant's land at the time of the sale constituted an apparent sign of easement under Article 624 of the Civil Code, entitling the vendee to continued use of the canal as an easement of aqueduct.
• Entitlement to Damages: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the defendant's act of levelling the irrigation canal.

• Governing Law: The Civil Code applies. The controversy falls under the subject of servitude of waters, governed by Article 648 of the Civil Code and suppletory laws including the Irrigation Act and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, specifically Article 122 thereof.
• Existence of Easement: Yes. The existence of the irrigation canal on the defendant's land prior to and at the time of the sale constituted an apparent sign of easement under Article 624 of the Civil Code, equivalent to a title for the vendee to continue enjoying the easement of aqueduct actively and passively.
• Entitlement to Damages: Yes, in principle. As an easement of waters has been established, the appellant is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction or wrongful interference; the case was remanded for reception of evidence on the appellant's claim for damages.

• Governing Law: The Court identified the principal issue as falling under the subject of servitude of waters, which is governed by Article 648 of the Civil Code and the suppletory laws referenced in Lunod vs. Meneses and Osmeña vs. Camara, namely the Irrigation Law and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, specifically Article 122 thereof. Article 122 provides that whenever irrigated land receiving water from a single point is divided through inheritance, sale, or other title, the owners of the higher estates are obligated to give free passage to the water as an easement of conduit for irrigation of the lower estates. This provision was lifted and incorporated into Article 624 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that no enlightened concept of ownership can exclude restrictions such as easements, as absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable and the proper enjoyment of property requires mutual service and forbearance among adjoining estates.

• Existence of Easement: The Court applied Article 624 of the Civil Code, which provides that the existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates established or maintained by the owner of both shall be considered, should either be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and passively, unless the contrary is provided in the title of conveyance or the sign is removed before execution of the deed. The irrigation canal traversing Felipe's land for the passage of water from the Pampanga River to Honorata's land existed prior to and at the time of the sale to Valisno, constituting an apparent sign of easement. Because both parcels were formerly owned by Eladio Adriano and the canal was maintained while both estates were under common ownership, its existence served as a title for the vendee to continue enjoying the easement. The deed of sale further expressly conveyed the water rights and improvements appurtenant to the property. The Court noted that water rights appurtenant to land pass with its conveyance even if not specifically mentioned, and that an easement by grant that also qualifies as an easement of necessity retains its permanency as a property right surviving the determination of necessity.

• Entitlement to Damages: Having established the easement of aqueduct in favor of the appellant, the Court held that he is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction, disturbance, or wrongful interference, such as the appellee's act of levelling the irrigation canal. However, because the record before the Court did not contain sufficient evidence to quantify the damages, the case was remanded to the court of origin for reception of evidence on the appellant's claim for damages.

• Apparent Sign of Easement (Article 624, Civil Code) — When the owner of two estates establishes or maintains an apparent sign of easement between them, the alienation of either estate is considered a title for the continuance of the easement actively and passively, unless the contrary is provided in the deed of conveyance or the sign is removed before execution of the deed. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the pre-existing irrigation canal traversing Felipe's land, maintained while both parcels were under the common ownership of Eladio Adriano, constituted such an apparent sign, entitling Valisno as vendee to continued enjoyment of the easement of aqueduct.

• Easement of Aqueduct as Continuous and Apparent (Article 646, Civil Code) — For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct is considered continuous and apparent, even though the flow of water may not be continuous or its use depends upon the needs of the dominant estate or a schedule of alternate days or hours. This characterization supports the automatic passage of the easement with the conveyance of the dominant estate.

• Appurtenant Water Rights Pass with Conveyance — Water rights appurtenant to a parcel of land pass with the conveyance of the land, even if not specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch running across the grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a third person. An easement by grant that also qualifies as an easement of necessity retains its permanency as a property right, surviving the determination of the necessity.

• Restrictions on Ownership Through Easements — Absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable; the proper enjoyment of property requires mutual service and forbearance among adjoining estates. No enlightened concept of ownership can exclude the idea of restrictions such as easements.

• "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 plaintiff was equivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue using it as provided in Article 624 of the Civil Code." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the pre-existing canal constitutes an apparent sign of easement under Article 624, serving as a title for the vendee's continued enjoyment.

• "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." — This articulates the doctrinal foundation underlying the Court's approach to easements, frequently cited in subsequent property-law jurisprudence.

• "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 specifically mentioned in the conveyance." — This defines the rule that appurtenant water rights automatically transfer with the land, a principle central to the disposition.

• Amor vs. Florentino, 74 Phil. 403 — Cited for the proposition that absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable and that the proper enjoyment of property requires mutual service and forbearance among adjoining estates, supporting the imposition of easement restrictions on ownership.
• Lunod vs. Meneses, 11 Phil. 128 — Cited as authority for identifying the suppletory laws governing servitude of waters, namely the Irrigation Law and the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866.
• Osmeña vs. Camara, C.A. 380 62773 — Cited alongside Lunod for the same proposition regarding suppletory laws applicable to servitude of waters under Article 648 of the Civil Code.
• Benedicto vs. CA, 25 SCRA 145 — Cited for the principle that an easement by grant that also qualifies as an easement of necessity retains its permanency as a property right, surviving the determination of the necessity.
• Watson vs. French, 112 Me. 371, 19 C.J. 868–897 — Cited as foreign authority for the rule that a purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch crossing the grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a third person.

• Article 624, Civil Code — Provides that an apparent sign of easement between two estates established or maintained by the owner of both is considered a title for the continuance of the easement upon alienation of either estate, unless the contrary is stipulated or the sign removed before execution of the deed. Applied as the controlling provision establishing Valisno's right to continued use of the irrigation canal.
• Article 642, Civil Code — Grants any person who wishes to use upon his own estate any water of which he can dispose the right to make it flow through intervening estates, with the obligation to indemnify their owners. Cited by the appellant as basis for the easement of aqueduct.
• Article 643, Civil Code — Enumerates the obligations of one desiring to exercise the right under Article 642: to prove disposal of and sufficiency of water, to show the right of way is most convenient and least onerous, and to indemnify the owner of the servient estate. Cited by the appellant in support of his easement claim.
• Article 646, Civil Code — Classifies the easement of aqueduct as continuous and apparent for legal purposes, even if the flow is not continuous. Cited by the appellant to characterize the nature of the easement.
• Article 648, Civil Code — Identified by the Court as the provision governing servitude of waters, with the Irrigation Law and the Spanish Law of Waters as suppletory.
• Article 122, Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 — Provides that when irrigated land receiving water from a single point is divided between two or more owners, the owners of the higher estates are obligated to give free passage to the water as an easement of conduit for irrigation of the lower estates. Noted as the source of Article 624 of the Civil Code.
• Section 4, Irrigation Law (Act No. 2152) — Provides that controversies between persons claiming a right to water from a stream are within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works, whose decision is final unless appealed to the proper court within thirty days. Cited by the trial court as basis for dismissing the complaint.
• Section 47, Irrigation Law (Act No. 2152) — Referenced in the Bureau of Public Works' decision as the basis for judicial action against Adriano if he failed to reconstruct the irrigation canal.

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