Serrano v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Urbano Serrano constructed a dam across the Potrero river on July 20, 1937, ten years prior, with permission from municipal authorities of Bacolor, Pampanga, for irrigation purposes. He claimed to have acquired an easement through more than ten years of continuous and unmolested enjoyment. Procedural History: The respondent, Vicente de la Cruz, as Under-Secretary of Public Works and Communications, issued an order on April 15, 1937, directing petitioner to remove the dam after an investigation prompted by a complaint from residents. Petitioner alleged that the respondent acted in excess of his powers and in abuse of discretion, which would cause him P30,000 in damages. The Petition: Petitioner filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga seeking to prevent the execution of the order or to be awarded damages. The respondent demurred, which was sustained. An amended complaint was filed, met with another demurrer, which was also sustained. Upon petitioner's election to stand on his amended complaint, the case was dismissed, leading to this appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the facts alleged in the petition constitute a cause of action. Whether the petitioner acquired a valid right to the use of the waters of the Potrero river. Whether the respondent acted in excess of his powers and in abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that the demurrer was rightly sustained as the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action. The petitioner's claim to the use of the water was based on an invalid appropriation and insufficient prescriptive period.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the facts alleged constitute a cause of action: The Court held that the demurrer was rightly sustained because the facts alleged in the petition did not constitute a cause of action. The petitioner's supposed right to use the waters of the Potrero river was founded on two allegations: permission from municipal authorities and continuous enjoyment for over ten years. However, the dam was constructed when the Irrigation Act (No. 2152) was in effect, which vests the exclusive power to grant appropriations of public water in the Secretary of Commerce and Police (now Secretary of Public Works and Communications) upon recommendation and approval of an Irrigation Council. Since the appropriation did not emanate from the legally empowered authority, it was null and void. Furthermore, the supposed right did not exist prior to the Irrigation Act, thus it was not an "existing right" protected by its saving provisions. On whether the petitioner acquired a valid right to the use of the waters: The Court found that the petitioner had not acquired a right to the use of public waters through prescription. The Civil Code and the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, require a prescriptive period of twenty years for such acquisition. The petitioner's claim of continuous enjoyment for only ten years was insufficient to establish a right by prescription. Therefore, his claim of an easement for irrigation purposes was not legally tenable. On whether the respondent acted in excess of his powers and in abuse of discretion: The claim for damages was contingent upon the validity of the petitioner's claim to the use of the waters. Since the Court determined that the petitioner had no valid right to the use of the waters of the Potrero river, he could not claim damages for the respondent's refusal to allow him to use said waters. Consequently, the respondent's order to remove the dam, based on the invalidity of the petitioner's appropriation, was not an act in excess of powers or an abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The appropriation of public waters requires express legal authority, and a claim of right based on an invalid permit or prescription of less than twenty years is not protected.