Title
Santiago Abadilla vs. Florention Laureta, Dionisio Laureta, and Domingo Guillermo
Case
REGISTRO GENERAL NO. 3485
Decision Date
Mar 23, 1908
Dispute over land, irrigation dam, and ditch ownership; plaintiff claims damages from defendants' usurpation. Court orders restitution, indemnity, and new trial for damages.
Font Size:

Case Digest (REGISTRO GENERAL NO. 3485)

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over realty, specifically an irrigation dam and ditch, and related damages. The plaintiff, Santiago Abadilla, claims ownership of a portion of land located in the sitio of Tamdagan, municipality of Dingras, province of Ilocos Norte. The land in question borders the properties of Pedro Hernando and Andres Guerrero to the North, a forest and the land of Florentino Laureta and Dionisio Laureta to the South, Dionisio Laureta to the East, and other lands of the plaintiff to the West. Additionally, the plaintiff claims ownership of a ditch and its corresponding dam, which irrigates the described land and other properties he possesses in the same sitio.

In June 1903, the defendant, Florentino Laureta, took possession of the mentioned land, planting palay in that year and the following year, 1904. In July of the same year 1903, Florentino Laureta, along with his co-defendants Dionisio Laureta and Domingo Guillermo, took possession of the referred ditch and dam, closing the ditch and two small braces, preventing the water from flowing to the other properties of the plaintiff in the mentioned sitio of Tamdagan. The plaintiff alleges that the usurped land produces anually sixteen uyones of palay, which he has ceased to receive during the years 1903 and 1904 due to the usurpation. As a consequence, the plaintiff's other contiguous sementeras were deprived of water, resulting in the death of the palay that had been planted in them in the year 1903 and the inability to plant them in 1904. The plaintiff asserts that the damages consist of one hundred uyones of palay, at the rate of fifty uyones that he should have received each year.

Issue:

The primary issue is the ownership and usurpation of the land and irrigation works in dispute. The plaintiff seeks restitution of the usurped land and indemnization for the losses caused by the usurpation. The defendants deny the allegations, claiming ownership of the ditch and dam by having constructed them in 1863 and asserting that the land in question is their property, having rotated it more than twenty years ago.

Ruling:

The court reversed the judgment of the court below, which favored the defendants, and ordered the defendants to yield possession to the plaintiff and to reimburse him for losses. The court also ordered a new trial for the purpose of fixing the damages only. The defendants were ordered to restore the ditch and dam to their original state and to indemnify the plaintiff for losses caused by the usurpation, consisting of the import of thirty-five uyones of palay for each year since 1903 until the restitution is verified.

Ratio:

The court found that the documents and testimonies presented by the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrate his ownership of the land in question, corroborated by the testimony of four witnesses. The court also found that the defendants' documents do not correspond to the land in dispute. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering restitution and indemnization for the damages incurred due to the usurpation. The court also ordered a new trial to determine the value of each uyon of palay that the defendants must indemnify to the plaintiff.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.