Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 265 views

    Relova v. Lavarez

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Agunoy
    (1) Relova owned rice land that was irrigated through an aqueduct passing over Lavarez's land, which had a dam to control water flow. Lavarez destroyed the dam, cutting off water to Relova's land. (2) The trial court found Relova had an easement to use the aqueduct, having done so for 30+ years. It issued an injunction and awarded damages. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the long use established an easement, and Relova was damaged as testimony showed he prepared land for cultivation that was unable to be irrigated after the dam's destruction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Relova v. Lavarez

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Agunoy
    265 views1 page
    (1) Relova owned rice land that was irrigated through an aqueduct passing over Lavarez's land, which had a dam to control water flow. Lavarez destroyed the dam, cutting off water to Relova's land. (2) The trial court found Relova had an easement to use the aqueduct, having done so for 30+ years. It issued an injunction and awarded damages. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the long use established an easement, and Relova was damaged as testimony showed he prepared land for cultivation that was unable to be irrigated after the dam's destruction.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Relova owned rice land that was irrigated through an aqueduct passing over Lavarez's land, which had a dam to control water flow. Lavarez destroyed the dam, cutting off water to Relova's land. (2) The trial court found Relova had an easement to use the aqueduct, having done so for 30+ years. It issued an injunction and awarded damages. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the long use established an easement, and Relova was damaged as testimony showed he prepared land for cultivation that was unable to be irrigated after the dam's destruction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    265 views1 page

    Relova v. Lavarez

    Uploaded by

    Marianne Agunoy
    (1) Relova owned rice land that was irrigated through an aqueduct passing over Lavarez's land, which had a dam to control water flow. Lavarez destroyed the dam, cutting off water to Relova's land. (2) The trial court found Relova had an easement to use the aqueduct, having done so for 30+ years. It issued an injunction and awarded damages. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the long use established an easement, and Relova was damaged as testimony showed he prepared land for cultivation that was unable to be irrigated after the dam's destruction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    31. Relova v.

    Lavarez
    G.R. No. L-3623. November 6, 1907
    Easment Relating to Waters
    Marianne A.
    Facts: Relova (plaintiff) is the owner of a rice land in Laguna, which is cultivated with water brought
    from the river Bangcabangca, through an aqueduct which passes over the land of defendants. On the land
    of the defendants there was a dam with a small gate which was used to control the flow of the water in the
    aqueduct, by permitting a greater or less quantity to escape in a drainage ditch, also in the land of the
    defendants. In May of 1905, one of the defendants destroyed the dam and let all the water escape by the
    drainage ditch, so that none flowed on the land of the plaintiff. At the time when the dam was destroyed
    the plaintiff had some five cavanes of land prepared to plant rice, but because of the escape of the water
    resulting from the destruction of the dam he was unable to raise his crop.
    The trial court found that the plaintiff has, as a matter of right, an easement in the land of the
    defendants for the maintenance of the said aqueduct and dam, given that he has been using the same for
    30 years. An injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to
    the use of the water in the aqueduct, in the manner established by custom and damages were awarded in
    favor of the plaintiff.
    The defendants raised several defenses namely (1) Relova was not the owner of the land (2) He
    was not damaged by the opening of the drainage ditch (they were saying that the gate was closed in May
    and the class of rice owned by Relova was to be planted Aug/Sept), (3) evidence of records does not
    establish the existence of the servitude on their land.
    Issue:
    (1) W/N there was a servitude on the land of the defendants for the maintenance of the aqueduct.
    (2) W/N petitioner suffered damage from the closure of the aqueduct.
    Held:
    (1) YES there is an easement. The aqueduct and the dam have been in existence for more than thirty
    years, during which period the owner of the land in question has always exercised the right to the
    reasonable use of the water in the aqueduct for irrigation purposes.
    Defendants contend that that under the Civil Code, the existence a servitude can not be
    established unless it appears that from such servitude a benefit was, or might be, derived by the plaintiff
    landowner. They argue that since the lands of the plaintiff are higher than the lands of the defendants, the
    aqueduct could never have been intended for the supply of water to the lands of the plaintiff and neither
    the dam nor the aqueduct could be of any benefit to these lands.
    This contention cannot be maintained against the positive testimony as to the existence of the
    aqueduct and its use for many years to supply water to the lands in question. While the defendants had a
    right to open the gate of the dam to prevent a destructive overflow of water on their lands, this would not
    give them the right to stop the flow of water altogether. Nor will it establish that plaintiff landowner is
    not entitled to the benefit of the reasonable use of the water flowing in the aqueduct, since it does not
    appear that such use necessarily involved destructive overflows from the aqueduct, provided the flow of
    water was properly regulated by the opening of the gate in the dam.
    (2) YES, plaintiff suffered damage. Witness testimonies showed that Relova actually prepared a portion of
    the land for cultivation that May.

    You might also like