G.R. No. L-20928 March 31, 1966
NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The controversy originated from a complaint by the Project Engineer of the Angat River Irrigation System, requesting 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. The Acting Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications, acting for the Secretary, rendered an administrative decision recognizing that Executive Proclamation Nos. 48 (1922) and 72 (1950) reserved water from the Angat River for the Metropolitan Water District (NAWASA’s predecessor) and the Angat River Irrigation System, respectively. However, the decision declared that NAWASA was not entitled to priority in the use of the Angat River’s water and ordered NAWASA to apply for water rights with the Bureau of Public Works under the Irrigation Law (Act 2152). NAWASA’s motion for reconsideration was denied. NAWASA appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila under the Irrigation Act. The Secretary defended, arguing the appeal was filed out of time, NAWASA failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and NAWASA had not acquired the right to use the water by administrative concession or prescription. The trial court annulled the Secretary’s decision. The Secretary appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appeal to the court from the administrative decision was filed within the reglementary period.
2. Whether NAWASA acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River by prescription.
3. Whether the petition should be dismissed.

RULING

1. On the timeliness of the appeal: The Supreme Court ruled the appeal was filed on time. NAWASA forwarded its complaint by registered mail on the last day of the 30-day period. The Court held that the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing under the Rules of Court. The Secretary’s argument that the filing fees were not simultaneously paid was rejected, as failure to pay docketing fees does not automatically dismiss an appeal; dismissal is discretionary, and there was no showing of abuse of discretion by the lower court.
2. On the acquisition of water rights: The Supreme Court ruled that NAWASA acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River. Executive Proclamation No. 48 (1922) reserved 3500 liters per second of water from the Angat River for the Metropolitan Water District, “exempt from appropriation.” This constituted a valid administrative concession in favor of NAWASA’s predecessor, entitled to priority over the later reservation for the Angat River Irrigation System (Proclamation No. 72, 1950). The requirement under the Irrigation Law to apply to the Director of Public Works was deemed a useless formality given the executive grant. Furthermore, NAWASA and its predecessors had openly, publicly, and exclusively used the water from 1913 to 1959 (46 years). The Court held that the Irrigation Law did not abolish prescription as a mode of acquiring water rights, which is recognized under the Civil Code and the Law of Waters of 1866. The Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Serrano vs. De la Cruz affirmed prescription as a means to acquire rights to public waters. The Secretary’s argument that prescription could not run against the government was addressed by citing Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Franco, which held that prescription can be asserted against another entity (like the Angat River Irrigation System) without needing to be adverse to the government itself, especially since the government had already granted the right via proclamation.
3. On the dismissal of the petition: The third assignment of error, being a consequence of the first two, required no separate discussion.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, holding it correctly reversed the administrative decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.