GR L 3099; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951
CIPRIANA GONZALES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PURIFICACION, GUILLERMO, EUSTACIO AND FAUSTINA, all surnamed DE DIOS, assisted by their guardian CARLOTA INDUCIL, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Plaintiff Cipriana Gonzales is the owner of a fishpond in Bulacan. The only source of water for her fishpond is the Kay Pateng River, but her property has no access to it because it is completely cut off by the fishpond owned by the defendants. After unsuccessful attempts to secure a right of way from the defendants, she filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The court, upon party agreement, appointed a surveyor to study the most convenient location for an aqueduct. After trial, the court granted plaintiff a right of passage for water, ordering her to construct an eight-meter-wide canal approximately one hundred meters long on the northwest side of the defendants’ dike, to build a similar dike alongside it at her expense, and to pay the defendants P798.16 as just compensation. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether there is a legal basis to grant the plaintiff an easement of aqueduct (right of way for water) over the defendants’ land to obtain water from the Kay Pateng River for her fishpond.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the petition. The right finds support in Articles 557 and 558 of the Civil Code. Article 557 entitles any person who wishes to use water under his control on his own land to take it through intervening estates, subject to indemnity. This “control” is interpreted under Article 558(1) as having a right to dispose of the water, which typically requires a grant from the government. The Court cited its precedent in Gonzales vs. Banzon, where a person with a government grant to use river water for irrigation was allowed a compulsory easement of aqueduct. The Court reasoned that a fishpond is classified as agricultural land and is an important economic undertaking. Therefore, the plaintiff, who desires to draw water for her fishpond, is entitled to the same privilege, assuming the necessary government permit is obtained. The Court noted that while proof of such a permit was not in evidence, it was not an issue disputed in the case. The determination of how and where the easement should be exercised is a factual matter already conclusively resolved by the Court of Appeals.