GR 72837; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72837 April 17, 1989
ESTER JAVELLANA, ROLANDO DEMAFILES, CESAR CRUZADA and ANTONIO SISON, petitioners, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, 4th CIVIL CASES DIVISION, MARSAL & CO., INC., and MARCELINO FLORETE, SR., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Marsal & Co., Inc. and Marcelino Florete, Sr. filed a complaint for damages against petitioners, who were school and barangay officials, alleging that petitioners denied them access to and use of a canal on their property. The canal connected the Iloilo River to the L. Borres Elementary School premises and adjacent lands. Private respondents had closed the dike entrance of this main canal in 1978. Petitioners, representing the school and community interests, sought to restore the water flow, arguing the canal served as a crucial drainage outlet and passage for saltwater to a school fishpond.
The parties stipulated key facts, including the canal’s existence since at least 1961 and the plaintiffs’ act of closing it. The core issues for trial centered on the canal’s origin, the cause of flooding after its closure, and whether an easement of water right-of-way had been constituted. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the reopening of the canal and awarding them damages. It found the canal predated Florete’s ownership and served as a necessary drainage servitude. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed this decision, granting a permanent injunction in favor of the private respondents and upholding their right to close the canal on their property.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that an easement of water right-of-way existed in favor of the school and adjacent lands, making the respondents’ property the servient estate.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the principles of legal easements under the Civil Code. The trial court’s factual finding, which the Supreme Court affirmed under the doctrine that it is not a trier of facts, established that the canals existed long before respondent Florete acquired the property. This temporal precedence is crucial.
Given this finding, an easement of water right-of-way had been constituted. The canal served a dual purpose: as an outlet for rainwater drainage from the dominant estates (the school and nearby lands) into the Iloilo River, and as an inlet for saltwater to a school fishpond. This use, existing prior to Florete’s ownership, created a servitude on his land as the servient estate. By closing the dike entrance, private respondents violated Article 629 of the Civil Code, which prohibits the servient estate owner from impairing the use of the servitude. The trial court correctly applied the law to the established facts, making its order to reopen the canal and award damages for the impairment legally sound. The Appellate Court’s contrary conclusion was therefore erroneous.