G.R. No. L-5005 - Dayrit vs. De los Santos

The plaintiffs, Celso Dayrit, Eulogia Dayrit, and Gregorio Dizon, claim ownership over a parcel of land traversed from west to east by the Panipuan estero.
The defendant, Juan de los Santos, constructed a dam on the plaintiffs’ property and built a canal or ditch to divert water from the estero to his leased fields.

In August 1906, the defendant built a dam on the said estero within the plaintiffs’ property.
Testimonies revealed that similar acts had been performed previously:

Felix Urquico testified that he had regularly constructed a dam on the same spot since acquiring the land in 1878, and that this practice continued without objection.
Saturnino Aguas, in 1904, also constructed a dam in the same location while leasing the land, although a subsequent settlement prevented him from further dam constructions.
Evidence also suggested that the watercourse and the annual dam construction had been historically recognized and recorded in a private instrument, establishing boundaries.

The rough sketch (Exhibit A) indicated that the area between the dam (marked with numbers 10 and 11) and the boundary of the swamp land (marked with 5 and 6) belonged to the plaintiffs.
In the defendant’s own Exhibit No. 1, a strip of land (marked A and C) is shown, but it was not claimed as belonging to him.
Additional exhibits (such as Exhibit B) confirmed that the plaintiffs’ property did not abut the Panipuan estero on the south.
A private instrument exists which could have clarified the true boundaries and documented the date of acquisition by Felix Urquico; however, its absence (or non-presentation) leaves some aspects unresolved.

They also sought the conversion of a preliminary injunction into a perpetual one.
Alongside these remedies, the plaintiffs claimed damages of over P250 for loss and damage, as well as subsequent damages resulting from the construction of the dam.

The defendant’s principal defense was based on the accrual of a right to a servitude through a prescription of twenty years.
Additionally, he demurred the complaint asserting that:

The facts alleged did not constitute a valid cause of action.
The complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible, and vague (although the latter ground was later abandoned).

In a counterclaim, the defendant sought P500 from the plaintiffs for damages allegedly caused by the issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Testimony from Felix Urquico and the rough sketches established the history of dam construction and usage of the estero.
The absence of testimonies from Mariano Pamintuan and Telesforo Pineda, who could have clarified the establishment of boundaries and the historical use, left some evidence incomplete.
There was minimal substantive evidence to prove that the dam construction had damaged certain clumps of canas espinas, and it was unproven that these could not be revived or utilized.

Whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding repeated or continuous acts of dam construction, established a cause of action sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction.
Whether the complaint adequately pleaded not only acts already accomplished by the defendant but also those intended to be repeated or continued.

Whether a writ of preliminary injunction could be issued to restrain acts that were both already performed and those foreseen as impending, considering that injunctions usually pertain to preventing future harm.
Whether preventing the defendant’s future acts would effectively preserve the plaintiffs’ rights and the status of the property.

The defendant’s claim of acquiring a right to the servitude through a twenty-year prescription was examined against the historical evidence of usage and land boundaries.
Whether the absence of certain key evidentiary documents or testimonies affected the resolution of the boundary disputes and the legitimacy of the defendant’s rights.