VALISNO V. ADRIANO- Doctrine of Apparent Sign
Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for irrigation purposes, which are appurtenant to a parcel of land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch running across the grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a third person.
FACTS:
Plaintiff is the absolute owner and actual possessor of a land in Nueva Ecija, with TCT No. NT-16281. He bought the land from the respondent’s sister, Honorata Adriano Francisco. The land which is planted with watermelon, peanuts, corn, tobacco, and other vegetables adjoins that of the respondent Adriano on the bank of the Pampanga River. Both parcels of land had been inherited by Honorata and Felipe from their father. At the time of the sale of the land to Valisno, the land was irrigated by water from the Pampanga River through a canal about seventy (70) meters long, traversing the Respondent's land.
In 1959, Respondent levelled a portion of the irrigation canal so that Plaintiff was deprived of the irrigation water and prevented from cultivating his 57-hectare land.
Plaintiff filed in the Bureau of Public Works and Communications a complaint for deprivation of water rights.
A decision was rendered ordering Adriano to reconstruct the irrigation canal. Instead of restoring the irrigation canal, the appellee asked for a reinvestigation of the case by the Bureau of Public Works and Communications. A reinvestigation was granted.
In the meantime, Plaintiff rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own expense because his need for water to irrigate his watermelon fields was urgent.
Later, he filed a complaint for damages in the RTC claiming that he suffered damages when he failed to plant his fields that yearfor lack of irrigation water, and when he reconstructed the canal.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications reversed the Bureau's decision by issuing a final resolution dismissing Valisno's complaint. The Secretary held that Eladio Adriano's water rights which had been granted in 1923 ceased to be enjoyed by him in 1936 or 1937, when his irrigation canal collapsed. His non-use of the water right since then for a period of more than five years extinguished the grant by operation of law, hence the water rights did not form part of his hereditary estate which his heirs partitioned among themselves.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Plaintiff has acquired the easement of water over Respondent’s land.
RULING: Yes.
The existence of the irrigation canal on Respondent’s land for the passage of water from the Pampanga River to Honorata's land prior to and at the time of the sale of Honorata's land to the plaintiff was equivalent to a title for the vendee of the land to continue using it as provided in Article 624 of the Civil Code (Doctrine of Apparent Sign):
Article 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both shall be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in order that he easement may continue actively and passively, unless at the time, theownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed.
The deed of sale in favor of Plaintiff included the "conveyance and transfer of the water rights and improvements" appurtenant to Honorata's property. According to the Plaintiff, the water right was the primary consideration for his purchase of Honorata's property, for without it the property would be unproductive.
Water rights, such as the right to use a drainage ditch for irrigation purposes, which are appurtenant to a parcel of land, pass with the conveyance of the land, although not specifically mentioned in the conveyance. The purchaser's easement of necessity in a water ditch running across the grantor's land cannot be defeated even if the water is supplied by a third person. The fact that an easement by grant may also have qualified as an easement of necessity does detract from its permanency as property right, which survives the determination of the necessity.
As an easement of waters in favor of the appellant has been established, he is entitled to enjoy it free from obstruction, disturbance or wrongful interference, such as the appellee's act of levelling the irrigation canal to deprive him of the use of water from the Pampanga River.
