Case Digest (REGISTRO GENERAL NO. 3485)
Facts:
The case involves Santiago Abadilla as the plaintiff and appellants against Florentino Laureta, Dionisio Laureta, and Domingo Guillermo as the defendants and appellees. The events took place in Tamdagan, Dingras, Ilocos Norte, with the case being decided on March 23, 1908. Santiago Abadilla claimed ownership of a parcel of land and an irrigation ditch that he used to irrigate his property. He alleged that in June 1903, Florentino Laureta unlawfully took possession of the land by planting rice on it, and in July of the same year, Florentino, along with his co-defendants, seized the irrigation ditch, blocking its flow and preventing water from reaching Abadilla's other properties. Abadilla asserted that the land in question produced 16 "uyones" of rice annually, which he was unable to harvest due to the defendants' actions in 1903 and 1904. He sought restitution of the land, compensation for the lost rice, and the restoration of the irrigation ditch. The defen...
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.