Title
Valisno vs. Adriano
Case
G.R. No. L-37409
Decision Date
May 23, 1988
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a landowner, affirming his right to use an irrigation ditch and allowing for further evidence on damages after a neighbor leveled the canal, citing the Irrigation Act and Civil Code.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37409)

Facts:

  • Nicolas Valisno filed an action for damages against Felipe Adriano on June 20, 1960.
  • The case was heard in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, docketed as Civil Case No. 3472.
  • Valisno claimed ownership and possession of a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, purchased from Honorata Adriano Francisco on June 6, 1959.
  • The land was described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-16281 and was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a canal traversing Adriano's land.
  • On December 16, 1959, Adriano leveled a portion of the irrigation canal, depriving Valisno of irrigation water and preventing him from cultivating his land.
  • Valisno filed a complaint with the Bureau of Public Works and Communications, which ordered Adriano to reconstruct the canal.
  • Adriano requested a reinvestigation, which was granted.
  • Valisno rebuilt the canal at his own expense and subsequently filed a complaint for damages, claiming P8,000 for lost crops, P800 for canal reconstruction, and P1,500 for attorney's fees and costs.
  • The Secretary of Public Works and Communications later dismissed Valisno's complaint, stating that the water rights granted to Eladio Adriano in 1923 had been extinguished due to non-use since 1936 or 1937.
  • The trial court dismissed Valisno's complaint and counterclaim, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in its decision.
  • The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's decision and ordered the appellee to grant the appellant continued and unimpeded use of the irrigation ditch. The ca...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court held that the trial court incorrectly ruled that the Secretary of Public Works had the authority to decide the plaintiff's claim for damages.
  • The existence of the irrigation canal on the defendant's land for the passage of water from the Pampanga River to Honorata's land prior to and at the time of the sale to Valisno was equivalent to a title for the vendee to continue using it.
  • This right is supported by Articles 642, 643, and 646 of the Civil Code, which provide for the easement of aqueduc...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.