Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.
New Chat Started
Ask AI
Title
Source:
Supreme Court
Full-text jurisprudence and laws exclusively from the Supreme Court's Official E-Library
Note: Direct links are not available for cases before 1996. Try a more recent case.elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
Marquez vs. Marquez
Case
G.R. No. 47792
Decision Date
Jul 24, 1941
Brothers Daniel and Gregorio Marquez disputed water rights over adjoining lands. A court-approved compromise granted equitable water usage, but Gregorio violated it by constructing a dam. The court upheld enforcement of the compromise but invalidated orders beyond its scope.
DANIEL MARQUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO MARQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
MORAN, J.:
In the plan, Annex A,there are three contiguous parcels of land, the first situated ontheNorth,belonging to defendant Gregorio Marquez, formerly to Severo Jurado; the second, on the south, belonging to plaintiff Daniel Marquez; and the thirdalso on the southand adjoining the second, belonging to defendant Gregorio Marquez. A dispute having arisen between the two brothers, Daniel and Gregorio, as to the distribution and use of the waters flowing through these parcels from the northto the south, civil caseNo. 3832 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas by Daniel Marquez against Gregorio Marquez which was compromised in thefollowing manner:
"Las partes en los dos asuntosarriba titulados, Daniel Marquez y Gregorio Marquez, asistidas de sus respectivos abogados, deseando dar fin a los dos litigios ahora pendientes, han convenido en transigirlos como por la presente los transigen en los terminos y condiciones que a continuacion se expresan:
"1. Se adjudican a Gregorio Marquez en plenodominio el terreno ocupado por un canal de riego, identificado en el piano Anexo A de este convenio, por una linea gruesa trazada entre los puntos marcados en dicho pleno con flechas y los numeros '2' y '3' en tinta roja, y todo el terreno situado al Este de dicho canal compuesto de porciones dellotecon Certificado Original de TituloNo. 550, del lote con Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. 2712, y del lote 5903 con Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. 2710; pero con exclusion de la pequena porcion situada al lado Este de la carretera comprendida en el Certificado Original de Titulo No. 550, o sea el lote No. 2 del piano Psu-37917, la cual porcion queda adjudicada aDaniel Marquez.
"2. A lo largo de dicho canal situado entre los dos puntos marcados 2 y 3 dentro de un circulo, en tinta roja, del adjunto piano Anexo'A' de este convenio, y en el borde Oeste o izquierdo del mismo, Gregorio Marquez se obliga a construirun dique de cemento con armaduras de hierro, debiendo tener dicho dique una altura de un (1)pie sobre el nivel del suelo y setenta (70) centimetros de profundidad bajo el suelo, con un grueso de cuatro (4)pulgadas siendo el objeto de dicho dique evitar que las aguas de las porciones de terreno que por el presente convenio quedanadjudicados a Daniel Marquez caigan y discurran por dicho canal. El mencionado dique se construira en o antes del 30 de abril de 1937.
"3. Todas las porciones situadas al Oeste de dicho canal de los lotes con Certificado Original de Titulo 550 y Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo 2712, asi como el lote No. 2 del piano Psu-37917, quedan adjudicados en pleno dominio a Daniel Marquez, libres de toda carga o gravamen.
"4. El Certificado Original de TituloNo. 607 que actualmente esta a nombre de la sociedad entre Daniel Marquez y Gregorio Marquez se cancelara y ensu lugarse expidira otro nuevo a nombre de DanielMarquez solamente.
"5. Las aguas queprovienendel predio superior anteriormente de la propiedad de Severo Jurado y en la actualidad de Gregorio Marquez, con Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. 9575 a favor deeste ultimo, se aprovecharan por Daniel Marquez yGregorio Marquez, y a fin de distribuir equitativamente entre ambos el aprovechamientode dichas aguas, se convieneen lo siguiente: (a) En los dias lunes, martes, miercoles y jueves decada semanaDaniel Marquez tendraderecho de aprovechar exclusivamente dichas aguas, y aeste efecto GregorioMarquez estara obligado a cerrar el canal en los puntos marcados con flechas y numeros 2, 4 y 5 en tinta roja del adjunto piano Anexo 'A' de este convenio; y (6) En los dias viernes, sabado y domingo, Gregorio Marquez tendra derechode aprovechar exclusivamente las mencionadas aguas, para cuyo efectoDaniel Marquez estara obligado a cerrar su canal en lospuntos marcados con flechas y numeros 1, 6, y 7 y 8 en tinta roja, indicados enel ad junto piano Anexo 'A' de este convenio, de modoquedichas aguas corran por el canal de Gregorio Marquez, marcado '1' y '2' en tinta roja en dicho piano. Daniel Maruqez empezara a aprovecharsede las aguas a las 7 a. m. de cada lunes, y Gregorio Marquez a las 7 a. Hide cada viernes.
"6." Queda entendido y estipulado igualmente que el gravamen a favor exclusivamente de Gregorio Marquezsobre la parcela de terreno que anteriormente era de Severo Jurado y ahora es de Gregorio Marquez,con Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. 9573 a favorde este ultimo, queda igualmente extendidoa favor de Daniel Marqueza los efectos del aprovechamiento de aguas arriba estipulado.
"7. Entrelospuntos marcadoscon flechas ycon los numeros '1' y '2' dentro deun circulo en tinta roja en el adjunto piano Anexo 'A,' existen actualmente dos canales paralelos y apoca distanciael uno del otro, por lo que ambas partes convienen en convertirlos en unsolo canal que sera de la propiedad comun de ambos, Daniel Marquezy Gregorio Marquez.
"8. Los gastos de subdivision de los lotes arribamencionados correran porcuenta de Daniel Marquez, y los de expedicionde losnuevos certificados, por cuenta de ambos en proportion a sus respectivasporciones."
This compromise was approved by the court and a judgment rendered in accordance therewith.Thereafter, in the same civil case No. 5832, a motionwas filed by the plaintiff, alleging the defendants to have violated the compromise, in that he constructed a dam by which the waters coming from his property on the north were intercepted and prevented from flowing freely towards the land of Ejaniel Marquez on the south. The motion was heard, an ocular inspection had, and the trialcourtthereafter rendered an order directing defendant to open the dam built at the point X in the plan, Annex A, during the days in which, according to the compromise, plaintiff is entitledto the use of the waters, without prejudice to closing it during the days in which the use of the waters should appertain to the defendant. It also directed defendant not to close the right of way existing on the northern and southern strips of the land ceded to him in their compromise, so that plaintiff may have accessto the other sideof his land. Defendant now challenges the validity of this order, contending that the lower court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion, on the ground that, although it had power to enforce its judgment founded on the compromise, it can so enforce it only in thevery terms of such compromise without in the least altering or modifying them, otherwise the proper procedure wouldbe an independent action.
It is a cherished rule of procedure thata court should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. The relevant portion of the compromise as approved by thecourt is as follows:
"(a) En los dias lunes, martes, miercoles y juevesde cada semana Daniel Marquez tendra derecho deaprovechar exclusivamente dichas aguas, y a este efecto Gregorio Marquez estara obligado a cerrar el canal en los puntos marcados con flechas y numeros 2, 4 y 5 en tinta roja del ad junto piano Anexo A de este convenio; y (b) En los dias viernes, sabado y domingo, Gregorio Marquez tendraderechode aprovechar exclusivamente las mencionadas aguas, para cuyo efecto Daniel Marquez estara obligado a cerrarsu canal en los puntos marcados con flechas ynumeros 1, 6, 7 y 8 en tinta roja, indicados en el adjunto piano Anexo 'A' de este convenio, de modo que dichas aguas cerran por el canal de Gregorio Marquez, marcado '1' y '2' en tinta roja en dicho piano."
These stipulations have become orders of the court contained in thejudgment rendered in accordance with the compromise, and such judgment being one requiring the performance of an act other than the payment of money, or the sale ordelivery of real or personal property, is considered as a special judgment enforcible by proceedings as for contempt. (Sec. 446, Act No.190, now Rule 39, sec. 9.) If, therefore, after serviceof a copy of the judgment uponthe defendant,as required in the legalprovisions abovecited, defendant violates the order or orders contained in the judgment, he may be dealt with as for contempt. In the judgment sought to be enforced, defendant is bound, fromMonday to Thursday of every week, to close the canal at points 2, 4 and 5 in the plan, Annex A, to permit plaintiff the exclusive enjoyment of the watersduringsaid days, and if defendant does something by which the waters are prevented from flowing to plaintiff's property, he is liable for contempt. It has been found by the trial court that the constructionof the dam at point X in the plan, Annex A, impairs greatly the flowing of the waters from the north to the property of plaintiff Daniel Marquez on the south, constituting thus a violation of the judgment rendered upon the compromise. We find in the record or in the evidence no ground whatsoever for disturbing this finding.
However, the order of the trial court directing defendant not to close the right of way existing on the north and south of the portion ceded to him in the compromise is null and void, it having been issued in excessof the court's jurisdiction. This right of way is not a matter covered by the judgment sought to be enforced. It is completely a new matter andcannot beacted upon in a mere petition for execution of judgment.
Order is affirmed in so far as it directs defendant to open the dam builtatpoint X in plan Annex A from Monday to Thursday of every week, and is reversed in sofar as it directs defendantnot to close the right of way existing on the north and south of the portion of land ceded to him in the compromise, this matter being a proper subject of an independentaction, without pronouncement as tocosts.
Avancena, C. J., Diaz, Laurel, Horrilleno, and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.