G.R. No. L-37409 - Valisno vs. Adriano

The case was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals due to a legal question beyond its jurisdiction.
The material facts were established during the trial and admitted by both parties.

On June 20, 1960, the plaintiff-appellant, Nicolas Valisno, filed an action for damages against the defendant-appellee, Felipe Adriano, in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
Valisno claimed ownership of a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, purchased from Honorata Adriano Francisco, the sister of the defendant, on June 6, 1959.
The land was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a canal that traversed the defendant's property.

On December 16, 1959, the defendant leveled a portion of the irrigation canal, depriving Valisno of water necessary for cultivating his land.
Valisno filed a complaint with the Bureau of Public Works and Communications, which ruled in his favor on March 22, 1960, ordering the defendant to reconstruct the canal.
The defendant sought a reinvestigation instead of complying with the order.

Valisno rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own expense due to the urgency of needing water for his crops.
He subsequently filed a complaint for damages, claiming a total of P9,300 for lost crops, reconstruction costs, and attorney's fees.

On October 25, 1961, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications dismissed Valisno's complaint, stating that the water rights of Eladio Adriano had ceased due to non-use.
The Secretary concluded that Valisno did not acquire any water rights with the land he purchased.

In his answer, the defendant admitted to leveling the canal but claimed he had no obligation to provide water rights to Valisno.
The defendant filed a counterclaim for damages incurred from Valisno's actions in constructing the canal.

The trial court ruled that Valisno had no right to access water through the defendant's land and dismissed both the complaint and counterclaim.
The court emphasized that disputes over water rights fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works.

Valisno appealed the trial court's decision, questioning whether the Irrigation Act or the Civil Code should apply to his claim for damages.
The plaintiff argued that the Secretary's authority did not extend to claims for damages resulting from the violation of his easement rights.

Valisno referenced Articles 642, 643, and 646 of the Civil Code, which govern the rights to use water and the obligations of landowners regarding easements.
He contended that the existence of the irrigation canal constituted a title for continued use of the easement.