Gonzales v. De Dios
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cipriana Gonzales, owner of a fishpond, filed an action against Purificacion, Guillermo, Eustacio, and Faustina de Dios (all surnamed De Dios) for a right of way to obtain water from the Kay Pateng River. Her fishpond was adjacent to the defendants' fishpond and had no ingress or egress to the river, being completely cut off by the defendants' property. Attempts to secure a right of way proved futile. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan, upon agreement of the parties, appointed a surveyor who investigated the premises and submitted a report. After presentation of evidence, the court rendered judgment granting the plaintiff a right of passage for water, ordering the construction of a canal, and awarding the defendants P798.16 as just compensation. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. The case reached the Supreme Court via certiorari. The Petition: The defendants-appellants questioned the legal basis for granting the plaintiff an easement of water over their land.
Issue(s)
Whether the law justifies the grant of an easement of water over the land of the appellants to provide the appellee a source of water for her fishpond. Whether a fishpond qualifies as a use for which an easement of aqueduct may be granted under existing laws.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the grant of an easement of aqueduct is justified under the provisions of the Law of Waters of 1866 and the Civil Code for the purpose of irrigating a fishpond, provided the necessary permits are obtained and just compensation is paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the law justifies the grant of an easement of water over the appellants' land for the appellee's fishpond: The Court affirmed the view of the Court of Appeals that the claim of the appellee is supported by Articles 118 to 125 of the Law of Waters of 1866 and Articles 557 and 558 of the Civil Code. Article 557 explicitly states that any person who wishes to use water of which they may have control is entitled to take it through intervening estates, subject to the obligation of indemnifying the owners. The Court interpreted "of which he may have the control" in conjunction with Article 558(1), meaning one has a right to dispose of the water, which is typically granted by the government. The Court found no prohibition in the cited laws against using water for purposes not explicitly enumerated, as long as the water is sufficient for the intended use. The Court reasoned that if a person with a government grant for irrigation can construct a canal over intervening lands upon payment of indemnity, the same privilege should be extended to the appellee for her fishpond. On the issue of whether a fishpond qualifies as a use for which an easement of aqueduct may be granted: The Court held that a fishpond falls within the classification of agricultural land and is an important source of revenue and economic development. It is an undertaking to be encouraged and promoted. The Court stated that laws should be interpreted to give them life if it can be done without doing violence to reason or statutory construction. Therefore, the use of water for a fishpond is a valid purpose for granting an easement of aqueduct, consistent with the spirit of promoting agricultural productivity and economic welfare. The Court emphasized that the appellee's right to draw water is contingent upon obtaining the necessary permit from the government, as required by law, although this specific point was not disputed in the case.
Main Doctrine
The grant of an easement of aqueduct under Article 557 of the Civil Code and the Law of Waters of 1866 is permissible for the irrigation of agricultural lands, including fishponds, provided that the applicant has obtained the necessary permit to use water from the government and pays just compensation for damages to the servient estate.