Salazar v.

Gutierrez
Makalintal, J. | May 29, 1970
Topic: Aqueduct
Nature: Certiorari

PARTIES:
Petitioners: CRISPINA SALAZAR

Respondents: GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ and DAMASO MENDOZA

DISPUTED MATTER: Nature of easement of aqueduct

FACTS:
 Petitioner Crispina Salazar: owner of a piece of land (Lot 436 of the Cadastral Survey of Balanga) situated in
Tuyo, Balanga, Bataan, covered by TCT 1578 issued by the Register of Deeds of the said province, and
acquired by her from the Municipality of Balanga on May 4, 1949
o Lot is bounded on the northeast by Lot 361, on the southeast by Sapang Tuyo, on the southwest by
Lot 435, and on the northwest by Lot 433
 Lot 433 was registered under the Torrens system on July 23, 1923, with OCT 2162
o 1927: ownership passed to respondent Guillermo Gutierrez by inheritance
o June 11, 1928: TCT No. 1059 was issued in his name
 No annotation of any lien or encumbrance affecting the land appears on either title
 Before the present controversy arose, Lot 436 and some of the surrounding estates, including Lot 433, were
irrigated with water from Sapang Tuyo (public stream) flowing through a dike that traversed Lots 431, 434, 433
and 461
o The portion of the dike that passed through Lot 433 branched near the boundary between this lot
and Lot 434 into a canal which ran across the rest of Lot 433 up to Lot 436.
o It was with the water flowing through this canal that Lot 436 used to be irrigated
 February 24, 1953: respondent Damaso Mendoza (lessee of Lot 433) demolished the canal, thereby stopping
the flow of the water and depriving Salazar's Lot 436 of the irrigation facilities which it formerly enjoyed
o Salazar then filed the present suit after her requests for the rebuilding of the canal and the
restoration of water flow were turned down
 CFI of Bataan: issued a writ of preliminary injunction, ordered defendants to restore the demolished portion of the
canal and to refrain from again demolishing the same pending trial
o March 9, 1953: Writ was dissolved upon a counterbond filed by the defendants
 Defendants then answered with their own counterclaim for damages; denied the substantial averments of the
complaint and put up a number of affirmative defenses.
 CFI: ruled in favor of Petitioner Salazar
o Demolished canal had been in existence for more than 30 years and he big dike from which it extended
had been constructed for the use of Lot 436 and several other lots belonging to different owners
o Ordered defendants to restore at their expense the canal in question, to connect it with the canal found
in Lot 436 and to cause the corresponding annotation of the encumbrance on Transfer Certificate of
Title 1059 covering Lot 433
o Ordered defendants to pay the Salazar P1,360 annually, beginning the agricultural year 1956-1957 until
the restoration of the canal; P4,700 as actual damages; P5,000 as moral damages; and, P1,000 as
attorney's fees, plus costs
 CA: Reversed the CFI Decision
o Since the easement of aqueduct over Lot 433 for the benefit of Lot 436 was a voluntary one, such was
extinguished when Lot 433 was registered on July 23, 1923 and the corresponding certificate of title
was issued without the annotation of said easement as a subsisting encumbrance

ISSUES/HELD:
W/N Salazar failed to comply with the requisites laid down by Article 643 to claim the legal easement set forth
in Article 642 of the New Civil Code – NO

 Main issue, as set forth in the decision of the CA, is the nature of the easement of aqueduct claimed by the
petitioner.
o If voluntary, the easement was extinguished upon the registration of Lot 433 in 1923, pursuant to
Section 39 of Act No. 496: “But if there are easements or other rights appurtenant to a parcel of
 registered land which for any reason have failed to be registered, such easements or rights shall remain
so appurtenant notwithstanding such failure and shall be held to pass with the land until cut off or
extinguished by the registration of the servient estate, or in any other manner.”
 CA: the easement in question was voluntary and not legal or compulsory
o Took into consideration Articles 557 and 558 of the Spanish Civil Code (now Articles 642 and 643,
NCC)
 ART. 642. “Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of which he can
dispose shall have the right to make it flow through the intervening estates, with the obligation
to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon which the waters
may filter or descend.”
 ART. 643. “One desiring to make use of the right granted in the preceding article is obliged: (1)
To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is sufficient for the use for which it is
intended; (2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least
onerous to third persons; (3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner
determined by the laws and regulations.”
 CA: there is no evidence to show that Salazar complied with the 3 requisites in Article 643 to entitle her to claim
a legal easement of aqueduct under Article 642

SC:
 First requisite of Article 643: petitioner must prove that she can dispose of the water and that it is
sufficient for the use for which it is intended
o The disputed canal has been in existence since the Spanish regime, or at least prior to the original
registration of Lot 433 in 1923
o If, as thus found, Salazar has been using water from Sapang Tuyo to irrigate Lot 436 since she
acquired said lot in 1949, as the Municipality of Balanga had been doing before her, and that such use
had lasted continuously for at least 30 years, it is a fair presumption that she had a right to do so
and that the water she could dispose of was sufficient for the purpose
o It would be a superfluity to require her to produce a permit from the proper authorities, for even without,
it the right had already become vested both under Article 194, Spanish Law of Waters and under Article
504, CC
 ART. 194. Any person who has enjoyed the use of public waters for a term of twenty years
without objection on the part of the authorities or of any third person, shall continue in its
enjoyment, even though he may not be able to show that he secured proper permission.
 ART. 504. The use of public waters is acquired:
(1) By administrative concession;
(2) By prescription for ten years.
The extent of the rights and obligations of the use shall be that established, in the first case, by
the terms of the concession, and, in the second case, by the manner and form, in which the
waters have been used
 Third requisite of Article 643, CC: refers to the matter of indemnity to the owner of the servient estate
o As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, it would be impossible now to present actual proof that
such indemnity has been paid, considering the number of years that elapsed since the easement
had first come into existence and the subsequent changes in ownership of the lots involved
o It is reasonable, however, that if the easement had continued for so long in fact, not only before
Lot 433 was registered in 1923 but for thirty years thereafter, until cut off by the respondents in 1953,
the legal requirement in question must have been complied with
 Second requisite of Article 643, CC: "the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least onerous
to third persons"
o CA: Salazar has not established this fact; "her own evidence reveals that her lot is abutting  Sapang
Tuyo  on its southern boundary, wherefrom she can easily and directly draw the water necessary to
irrigate her land."
 SC: This statement is an oversimplification
 Proximity or abutment of a piece of land to a stream does not necessarily carry
with it the conclusion that water may conveniently be drawn directly therefrom
for irrigation
 First, Salazar has pointed out in her brief, without contradiction by the respondents, that the
portion of her land which abuts Sapang Tuyo  is precipice
 Second, the trial court made an ocular inspection of the premises and observed that the
eastern and northeastern portions of Lot 436 are lower than the southwestern, western and
northwestern (the point where Lot 436 adjoins Lot 433) portions of the same
  Finally, it would appear from the observation made by the same court that the demolished
canal is part of a system of conduits used to irrigate the lands of the petitioner and the
respondents as well as the surrounding estates belonging to other owners, and that this
system of conduits is of a permanent nature
o It is a reasonable conclusion that the demolished canal supplying water to Salazars’s Lot 436 was
merely extension of the system of conduits established long ago, considering that in view of the
topography of the area and the proximity of the said lot to the main dike in Lot 433 it was more
convenient to make the connection therewith than to draw water directly from Sapang Tuyo
o Article 118, Spanish Law of Waters: allows the creation of a compulsory easement of aqueduct for
the purpose of establishing or extending an irrigation system; there is nothing to the contrary in the
Civil Code
 In any case, the respondents are hardly in a position to avail of the registration of Lot 433 in 1923 without the
corresponding registration of the easement on the title as an excuse to summarily terminate it 30 years later
o The original registered owner allowed the easement to continue in spite of such non-registration
 The least that can be said is that he either recognized its existence as a compulsory
servitude on his estate or voluntarily agreed to its establishment and continuance
o Respondent Gutierrez, as the successor-in-interest to the owner by inheritance, is not an innocent third
person who could plead the absence of annotation on the title.
 Not only was he aware of the existence of the easement when he inherited the property in
1927, but he likewise allowed it to continue for 26 years after he acquired title.
 He is then bound both by the act of his predecessor and by his own

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and that of the Court of First Instance of Bataan
affirmed, with costs against the respondents.

OPINIONS:
None
____________________________________________________________________________

HELPFUL INFORMATION

DOCTRINE:

ANNEX: