Case Digest (G.R. No. 16392)
Facts:
Solis et al. v. Fujeda et al., G.R. No. 16392, January 13, 1922, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiffs and appellees were Macario Solis, Florentino Joya, Julian Montano, and Gregorio Trias; the defendants and appellants were Benedicta Fujeda (Pujeda in the opinion), her husband Valentin Giongco, and Roman Aranas.
The defendants owned a strip of land along the estero of Calibuyo in the barrio of Calibuyo, municipality of Tanza, Cavite. The plaintiffs had built a stone or concrete dam across the stream to obtain irrigation water. One wing of the dam rested upon the bank belonging to Benedicta Fujeda, thereby appropriating several square meters of her land for construction and causing several hundred additional square meters above the dam to be flooded.
Believing herself aggrieved, Benedicta Fujeda, aided by Roman Aranas, on or about July 20, 1918, made an opening about one meter wide and two meters deep in the portion of the dam abutting her land to free the accumulated water. The plaintiffs then sued to enjoin the defendants from interfering with repair and future use of the dam and sought P90 as damages for the breaking. The defendants answered, filed a counterclaim asking that the plaintiffs be ordered to remove the dam and be enjoined from reconstructing it, and sought P3,000 in damages.
At trial the judge found for the plaintiffs and entered judgment in their favor. The defendants appealed. The record contains no transcript of oral testimony, so the Supreme Court accepted the trial judge's findings of fact as made in relation to the written record. Administrative events preceding and contemporaneous with the construction were crucial: the plaintiffs expected and sought approval from the Director of Lands, promised to indemnify Fujeda, and initially the Director ordered removal. Later the Director proposed that the plaintiffs deposit P371.68 with the Bureau of Lands to cover probable damage, which was apparently done; security by bond of P1,000 was subsequently given. The watermaster inspected and reported the dam a failure and recommended removal.
The plaintiffs relied on the Director of Lands' communications and the deposit and bond as authority to continue construction. The trial court apparently accepted the administrative correspondence as suffic...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiffs have legal authority to build and maintain the dam, such that the defendants were wrongfully entitled to break it?
- Could the Director of Lands, by the correspondence, deposits, inspections, and bond, validly authorize the imposition of an easement of buttress over private (friar) land without an investigation o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)