Javellana v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Marsal & Co., Inc. and Marcelino Florete, Sr. filed a complaint for recovery of damages against petitioners and others, seeking to enjoin the demolition of structures serving as a dike entrance to a canal on their property and to compel the reopening of access to the canal. The canal in question led from the Iloilo River, traversed private respondents' property, and then passed through the L. Borres Elementary School premises towards Lot 2344. Private respondents allegedly closed the dike entrance to this canal in July 1978. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint and ordered private respondents to restore and reopen the dike entrance, demolish impeding structures, and pay damages to the defendants. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) set aside the RTC decision, granting a writ of preliminary injunction to become permanent and ordering the defendants to respect the plaintiffs' rights regarding the dikes. The Petition: Petitioners (defendants in the lower courts) sought review of the IAC decision, arguing it was contrary to law, based on speculation, and that the findings of fact were unsupported by competent evidence, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the canal in question existed since time immemorial or only since 1961. Whether plaintiff Marcelino Florete, Sr. constructed the main canal and the canal traversing the school premises. Whether an easement or servitude of water-right-of-way was constituted on the property of the plaintiffs. Whether the closing of the dike entrance caused the flooding of the L. Borres Elementary School and its vicinity. Whether the closure of the dike entrance violated Article 629 of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 296. Whether defendants acted in their private or official capacities. Whether defendant Ester Javellana denied plaintiffs the use of the canal. Whether either party may be held liable for damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the respondent appellate court and reinstated the judgment of the Regional Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence and origin of the canal: The Court found, based on the testimonies of several witnesses, including a former co-owner's child and long-time residents, that the main canal had been in existence long before plaintiff Florete, Sr. acquired the property. These testimonies indicated the canal's presence as early as 1948, 1954, and even 1937. While Florete, Sr. may have deepened portions of the canal in 1961, the evidence established its prior existence. The Court noted that the cadastral map did not show the canal because it was less than five meters wide and did not have continuous flow except during high tide or rainy seasons, serving as both a water source and drainage. On the construction of the canal: The Court addressed whether Florete, Sr. constructed the main canal and found that while he may have deepened portions in 1961, the canal's existence predated his acquisition of the property, as evidenced by witness testimonies. On the constitution of an easement of water-right-of-way: The Court held that an easement of water-right-of-way had been constituted on the property of the plaintiffs (Marsal & Co., Inc. and Marcelino Florete, Sr.) as the servient estate in favor of the L. Borres Elementary School land and nearby lands as dominant estates. This was established by the canal's long-standing use for supplying salt water to the school fishpond and serving as a drainage outlet for rainwater. Even if Florete, Sr. constructed the canal in 1961, its continuous use for over fifteen years by the school fishpond and adjacent lands created a positive easement under Article 616 of the Civil Code. On the cause of flooding: The Court concluded that the defendants' closure of the dike entrance directly caused the flooding of the L. Borres Elementary School premises and its vicinity. This was supported by the testimonies of government officials who conducted ocular inspections and submitted reports, as well as photographs showing stagnant floodwaters. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that floodwaters receded to the adjacent Borres property, finding that the Borres property was at a higher elevation. On the violation of Article 629 of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 296: The Court ruled that by closing the entrance of the canal and demolishing portions of the dike, the plaintiffs impaired the use of the servitude by the dominant estates, violating Article 629 of the Civil Code, which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from impairing the use of the easement. Furthermore, this act transgressed Presidential Decree No. 296, which prohibits the obstruction of the flow of water through rivers, creeks, esteros, and drainage channels, as the canal served as both a water source and a drainage channel for rainwater. On the actions of the defendants: The Court found that the defendants acted in their official capacities and for the public good. The school officials and the barangay captain took action to address the closure of the canal, which deprived the school fishpond and residents of salt water and posed a flooding hazard. Defendant Col. Jose Hernani also acted within his duty as head of the Office of Civil Defense. On Ester Javellana's actions: The Court clarified that defendant Ester Javellana's letter did not deny Florete, Sr. the use of the canal but rather objected to the burying of pipes that would deprive the school of water and impede drainage. On damages: The Court held that the plaintiffs were liable to the defendants for moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of litigation. The Court found that the plaintiffs filed the action in bad faith, causing the defendants worry, anxiety, and mental anguish, and forcing them to incur expenses for legal counsel. The Court noted that while the school fishpond and residents may have suffered damages, these could not be awarded as they were not parties to the case.
Main Doctrine
The closure of a canal that serves as a water-right-of-way and drainage channel, impairing the use of the servitude by the dominant estate and causing flooding, violates Article 629 of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 296, and may give rise to claims for damages.