Facts:

The case involves Bienvenido Amistoso as the petitioner and Senecio Ong, Epifania Neri, and Hon. Presiding Judge Esteban M. Lising of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch VI, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on July 27, 1978, when Amistoso filed a complaint for Recognition of Easement with Preliminary Injunction and Damages against Neri and Ong in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which was docketed as Civil Case No. P-153. The complaint alleged that Amistoso and Neri owned adjoining agricultural lands in Cauayanan, Tinambac, Camarines Sur, through which an irrigation canal traversed Neri's property, allowing water from the Slimod River to flow to Amistoso's land for irrigation. Despite repeated demands, Neri and Ong refused to acknowledge Amistoso's rights to the water and to have these rights annotated on Neri's Certificate of Title. In their answer, the respondents denied Amistoso's claims and asserted th...

Facts:

1. Parties and Properties Involved:

   • Petitioner Bienvenido Amistoso and respondent Epifania Neri own adjoining agricultural lands in Cauayanan, Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
   • An irrigation canal traverses Neri’s land, diverting water from the Silmod River to Amistoso’s land for irrigation purposes.

2. Petitioner’s Claims:

   • Amistoso filed a complaint for Recognition of Easement with Preliminary Injunction and Damages on July 27, 1978, before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur.
   • He claimed a vested right to use the irrigation canal and sought to have this right annotated on Neri’s Certificate of Title.
   • Amistoso alleged that Neri and Senecio Ong (the cultivator of Neri’s land) refused to recognize his rights despite repeated demands.

3. Respondents’ Defense:

   • Respondents denied the existence of any right or contract granting Amistoso the use of the canal.
   • They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, as the case involved water rights disputes falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Water Resources Council (NWRC) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 424 and the Water Code (P.D. No. 1067).

4. Procedural History:

   • After Amistoso presented his evidence, respondents filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court on January 14, 1981, for lack of jurisdiction.
   • Amistoso appealed, arguing that the case was filed before the effectivity of P.D. No. 424 and that his water rights had already been granted by the Department of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications.

5. Stipulation of Facts:

   • The parties agreed that:
     • An irrigation canal exists, diverting water from the Silmod River to Amistoso’s land.
     • Amistoso holds a Water Rights Grant issued in 1973.
     • Respondents have no approved Water Rights Grant but have a pending application.
     • Respondents refused to annotate the easement on Neri’s title, questioning the validity of the contract.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Jurisdiction:

   • The case did not involve a water rights dispute but the enforcement of an established right to an easement. The NWRC’s jurisdiction under P.D. No. 424 and the Water Code applies only to disputes over the use, conservation, and protection of water resources, not to the recognition of vested rights.

2. Validity of Water Rights Grant:

   • Amistoso’s Water Rights Grant, issued in 1973, was valid under the old laws and was not subject to the registration requirements of the Water Code. The grant constituted a vested right that could not be litigated anew.

3. Res Judicata:

   • The issue of Amistoso’s right to use the irrigation water had already been settled by the issuance of the Water Rights Grant. Re-litigating the issue would violate the principle of res judicata.

4. Nature of the Case:

   • The case was not about determining water rights but about enforcing the recognition and annotation of an easement. The closure of the irrigation canal by respondents constituted a violation of Amistoso’s vested rights, necessitating judicial intervention.

5. Distinction from Abe-Abe vs. Manta:

   • The Court distinguished the case from Abe-Abe vs. Manta, where both parties lacked established water rights. Here, Amistoso had a valid Water Rights Grant, making the case outside the NWRC’s jurisdiction.

Separate Opinion (Abad Santos, J.)

Justice Abad Santos concurred but emphasized that certain procedural requirements under Articles 642 and 643 of the Civil Code must be observed before formally establishing the easement of aqueduct. These include proving that the aqueduct’s location is the most convenient and least onerous to third parties and paying indemnity to the servient estate owners. He suggested remanding the case to the trial court to adjudicate these matters.