Facts:

The case involves Nicolas Valisno as the plaintiff-appellant and Felipe Adriano as the defendant-appellee. The events leading to the case began on June 20, 1960, when Valisno filed an action for damages against Adriano, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 3472 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. Valisno claimed to be the absolute owner and actual possessor of a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land located in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, as described in his Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-16281. He purchased this land from Honorata Adriano Francisco, the sister of the defendant, on June 6, 1959, through a Deed of Absolute Sale. The land was cultivated with various crops and was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River via a canal that traversed Adriano's property.

On December 16, 1959, Felipe Adriano leveled a portion of the irrigation canal, which deprived Valisno of the necessary water for cultivating his land. In response, Valisno filed a com...

Facts:

Ownership and Sale of the Land

• The plaintiff-appellant, Nicolas Valisno, filed a complaint for damages against the defendant-appellee, Felipe Adriano, in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 3472).
• Valisno claimed to be the absolute owner and possessor of a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-16281.
• He purchased the land from Honorata Adriano Francisco, the sister of the defendant, on June 6, 1959, through a Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "A").
• The land, which was planted with crops like watermelon, peanuts, corn, and tobacco, adjoined the defendant's land on the bank of the Pampanga River.
• Both parcels of land were inherited by Honorata and Felipe from their father, Eladio Adriano.

Irrigation Canal and Water Rights

• At the time of the sale, the land was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a 70-meter-long canal traversing the defendant's land.
• On December 16, 1959, the defendant levelled a portion of the irrigation canal, depriving Valisno of irrigation water and preventing him from cultivating his 57-hectare land.
• Valisno filed a complaint with the Bureau of Public Works and Communications, which on March 22, 1960, ordered Adriano to reconstruct the canal or face judicial action under Section 47 of Act 2152 (the Irrigation Act).
• Instead of complying, Adriano requested a reinvestigation, which was granted.
• Valisno, needing urgent irrigation for his watermelon fields, rebuilt the canal at his own expense.

Legal Proceedings

• On June 20, 1960, Valisno filed a complaint for damages, claiming P8,000 for lost crops, P800 for canal reconstruction, and P1,500 for attorney's fees and litigation costs.
• On October 25, 1961, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications reversed the Bureau's decision, ruling that Eladio Adriano's water rights, granted in 1923, had been extinguished due to non-use since 1936 or 1937. Thus, Valisno did not acquire any water rights with the land purchase.
• Adriano admitted to levelling the canal but argued that neither his father nor his sister had water rights. He claimed he obtained water rights for his land in 1958 and had the right to level his land. He also filed a counterclaim for damages.

Trial Court Decision

• On April 21, 1966, the trial court ruled that Valisno had no right to pass through Adriano's land to draw water from the Pampanga River. It held that the Secretary of Public Works had exclusive jurisdiction over water rights disputes under Section 4 of the Irrigation Act, and its decision was final unless appealed within 30 days.
• The court dismissed Valisno's complaint and Adriano's counterclaim. Valisno's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on a question of law.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Easement of Aqueduct under the Civil Code: The Court emphasized that the Civil Code provisions on easements, particularly Articles 642, 643, and 646, govern the rights and obligations of parties in disputes over water rights. The existence of the irrigation canal on Adriano's land at the time of the sale created an easement of aqueduct in favor of Valisno, which he could continue to use.
2. Apparent Sign of Easement: Under Article 624 of the Civil Code, the irrigation canal constituted an apparent sign of easement, which Valisno could rely on as a title to continue using the canal. This provision applies even if the water rights were not explicitly mentioned in the deed of sale.
3. Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works: While the Secretary of Public Works has jurisdiction over disputes involving water rights under the Irrigation Act, it does not extend to claims for damages arising from the violation of easement rights under the Civil Code. Such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
4. Water Rights as Appurtenant to Land: The Court noted that water rights appurtenant to a parcel of land pass with the conveyance of the land, even if not explicitly mentioned in the deed. Valisno's easement of necessity in the irrigation canal could not be defeated by Adriano's actions.

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of easements in property law and the limitations on the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in resolving disputes involving civil law rights.