Case Digest (G.R. No. 6558)
Facts:
Federico Martinez v. Casimiro Diza et al., G.R. No. 6558, November 24, 1911, the Supreme Court, Trent, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte (Hon. Dionisio Chanco presiding) which perpetually enjoined the defendants from constructing a dam across a small stream (zanja or arroyo) in Vintar and from otherwise interfering with the flow of its waters.The plaintiff-appellee, Federico Martinez, alleged an exclusive right to the stream’s water for irrigation by virtue of uninterrupted use from 1884 until 1904 and invoked a prior 1904 judgment that had resulted in the destruction of a partially built dam by Venancio Duque and Casimiro Diza. The defendants-appellants (including Casimiro Diza and the Pasises, Cornelio and Dionisio) contended they and their ancestors had used the water since time immemorial and that their lands lie above the plaintiff’s nearer the source; only enough water exists to irrigate one party’s lands.
At trial before the Court of First Instance, Martinez produced several witnesses who testified to his exclusive, continuous use (except for the 1904 interruption) and to the absence of other dams near his. He also produced the deputy sheriff who testified to destroying the 1904 partially built dam. The defendants produced witnesses who testified that the Pasises’ lands had long been cultivated and that the Pasises and their ancestors had used the stream’s water for irrigation, leaving little or no surplus for the plaintiff; one defendant-witness also testified that another partially constructed dam existed above the one destroyed in 1904.
The trial court relied heavily on the 1904 decision (in which Martinez had been the complainant against Duque and Diza) and ultimately ruled for Martinez, issuing the perpetual injunction against the present defendants. The present appeal followed to the Supreme Court from that judgment. The...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court’s injunction sustaining Martinez’s exclusive right to the stream waters properly supported where testimony was conflicting and the court gave no reasons for preferring the plaintiff’s witnesses?
- Were the defendants Cornelio and Dionisio Pasis bound by the prior 1904 judgment against Duque and Diza such that the trial court could properly base ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)