Case Digest (G.R. No. 9869)
Facts:
Crispina Salazar v. Guillermo Gutierrez and Damaso Mendoza, G.R. No. L-21727, May 29, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makalintal, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Crispina Salazar owned Lot No. 436 in Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan (TCT No. 1578), acquired from the municipality in 1949. Respondent Guillermo Gutierrez succeeded by inheritance to Lot No. 433 (originally O.C.T. 2162; TCT No. 1059 issued June 11, 1928). Damaso Mendoza was a lessee of Lot 433. Prior to the dispute, Lot 436 and surrounding lots were irrigated from Sapang Tuyo through a system of a main dike and subsidiary canals; a canal branched through Lot 433 and connected with the irrigation system serving Lot 436.
On February 24, 1953 Mendoza demolished the canal traversing Lot 433, stopping the flow of water and depriving Salazar’s Lot 436 of irrigation. Salazar’s requests for reconstruction having been refused, she filed suit on March 2, 1953 seeking restoration of the canal, reconnection to Lot 436, and damages (actual, moral, and attorney’s fees). A preliminary injunction was initially issued, then dissolved on March 9, 1953 upon defendants’ counterbond. The defendants answered and counterclaimed.
After trial and an ocular inspection, the Court of First Instance of Bataan (Civil Case No. 2269) found the demolished canal had existed since the Spanish regime or at least since before the 1923 registration of Lot 433, formed part of a permanent irrigation system, and ordered defendants to restore the canal, annotate the encumbrance on TCT No. 1059, pay annual compensation pending restoration, actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 19489-R) reversed on July 26, 1963, holding the aqueduct easement was voluntary and therefore extinguished by the 1923 registration of Lot 433 without annotation, relying on Section 39 of Act No. 496 and Articles 557–558 (now Arts. 642–643) of the Civil Code. Salazar elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the omission to prove service of a copy of the petition upon the Court of Appeals under Section 1 of Rule 46 (now Rule 45) jurisdictional so as to warrant dismissal?
- Was the aqueduct easement over Lot 433 a voluntary easement extinguished by the 1923 registration of Lot 433 without annotation, or was it a legal/compulsory easement (or otherwise preserved) that survived registration and therefore entitles pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)