National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed by the Project Engineer of the Angat River Irrigation System to the Director of Public Works, requesting representations from the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) to release water from the Ipo Dam to prevent crop failure in Bulacan. NAWASA refused due to low reservoir levels. Procedural History: The Acting Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications issued an administrative decision recognizing Executive Proclamation Nos. 48 and 72, which reserved water for the Metropolitan Water District (predecessor of NAWASA) and the Angat River Irrigation System, respectively. However, the decision declared NAWASA not entitled to priority and ordered it to apply for water rights under the Irrigation Law (Act 2152), effectively denying NAWASA's right to use the Angat River waters. The Petition: NAWASA's motion for reconsideration was denied, and it appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila within the 30-day period allowed by the Irrigation Law by filing a complaint via registered mail. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications raised defenses of late filing, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and NAWASA's lack of acquired rights by concession or prescription. The CFI found these defenses untenable and reversed the Secretary's decision. The Secretary appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal to the Court of First Instance was filed within the reglementary period. Whether NAWASA acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River by prescription. Whether the petition should be dismissed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the appeal was timely filed and that NAWASA had acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River by prescription. The administrative decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was reversed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period. While the complaint was sent by registered mail on the last day, the appellant's argument that filing fees were not simultaneously paid was untenable. The Court noted that failure to pay docketing fees does not automatically result in dismissal but is discretionary with the appellate court. Applying Rule 141, Section 3 by analogy to the Court of First Instance exercising appellate jurisdiction, the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing. Therefore, the first assignment of error was overruled. On the acquisition of rights by prescription: The Court found that NAWASA had acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River by prescription. Executive Proclamation No. 48, as amended, reserved water for the Metropolitan Water District, constituting an administrative concession. This concession was made 28 years prior to Proclamation No. 72 for the Irrigation System, granting NAWASA priority. The Court reasoned that the proclamation's terms "exempt from appropriation" and "reserve for the use" implied exclusive authority for the District. The Secretary's contention that NAWASA needed to apply for water rights was deemed unreasonable, as the proclamation itself excluded the water from appropriation by others. The Court further noted that from 1913 to 1959 (46 years), NAWASA and its predecessors openly and exclusively used the water without objection. The Court clarified that while the Irrigation Law (Act 2152) requires an application for appropriation, it does not expressly invalidate prescription as a mode of acquiring water rights, especially since both the Civil Code of 1889 and the Law of Waters of 1866 recognized prescription, and the Civil Code of 1950 reiterated this. The Court cited previous pronouncements recognizing title to water use by prescription, such as in Serrano vs. De la Cruz. The argument that prescription cannot be asserted against the government was also addressed, with the Court stating that the use was adverse to the Angat River Irrigation System, not necessarily the National Government, which had already granted the prior use. On the dismissal of the petition: As the first two assignments of error were overruled, the third assignment of error, which was a consequence of the preceding ones, also required no separate discussion. The Court concluded that the lower court correctly reversed the administrative decision.
Main Doctrine
The Proclamations reserving water for the Metropolitan Water District (predecessor of NAWASA) constituted valid administrative concessions, and the subsequent use of the water for 46 years ripened into a right by prescription, notwithstanding the provisions of the Irrigation Law, as the law did not expressly invalidate prescription as a mode of acquiring water rights.