Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

2f Property Case Digests

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

L-4827 May 31, 1979

GERARDO D. ABE-ABE, Et. Al., petitioners,


vs.
JUDGE LUIS D. MANTA of the Court of First Instance of Camiguin and PEDRO P. ROMUALDO,respondents.

FACTS:

On August 20, 1976, petitioners filed an injunction suit against Pedro P. Romualdo. The purpose of the suit
was to secure a judicial declaration as to the petitioners' prior vested rights under article 504 of the Civil Code to use
the water of the Anibungan Inobo Ablay and Tajong Crocks to irrigate their ricelands located upstream in Barrios
Lumad and Baylao Mambajao, Camiguin The petitioners sought to enjoin Romualdo from using the water of the
creeks at night to irrigate his two (2) hectare riceland located downstream. That nocturnal use was allegedly
prejudicial to the petitioners.

Their version is that their use of the water of the creeks started in 1938; that in 1952 or after the volcanic
eruption, the waters of the creeks were made to converge in a single channel and two diversion dams were. The
petitioners wanted to convey the impression that the communal irrigation system was established primarily for the
benefit of the ricelands located upstream.

Romualdo, in his answer, that at a conference held among the parties and it was agreed upon that the water
of the creeks would be used on a rotation basis wherein: the petitioners would use it in the daytime and Romualdo
and the other landowners downstream would use the water at night.

Romualdo alleged that he filed a water permit application with the district engineer's office so that he could
use legitimately the water to irrigate his riceland. In contrast, the petitioners did not file any water permit
applications although required to do so by the district engineer's office.

Romualdo interposed the defense that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
He contended that the petitioners' remedy was to file their complaint with the district engineer's office pursuant to
Department Order No. 245 dated September 29, 1958 of the Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications.

Romualdo also invoked PD No. 424, which created the National Water Resources Council and vested it with
powers to coordinate and integrate water resources development activities orto "determine, adjudicate, and grant
water rights". Romualdo argued that PD No. 424 repealed article 504 of the Civil Code which allows the acquisition
of the use of public waters by prescription for ten years.

ISSUE:

WON, the CFI of Camiguin has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute over water rights for irrigation purposes
even if the controversy has not yet been passed upon by the National Water Resources Council, the agency vested
with original and exclusive competence to resolve conflicting c on the appropriation of water resources.

HELD:

We hold that the petition is devoid of merit. It is incontestable that the petitioners' immediate recourse is to
ventilate their grievance with the National Water Resources Council which, as already noted, is the administrative
agency exclusively vested with original jurisdiction to settle water rights disputes-under the Water Code and under
Presidential Decree No. 424.

That jurisdiction of the Council under section 2(b) of Presidential Decree No. 424 is reaffirmed in section 88
of the Water Code and in section 3(d) thereof which provides that the utilization, exploitation, development,
conservation and protection of water resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the government
through" the Council.

It should be noted that article 100 of the Water Code repealed the provisions of the Civil Code and the
Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 "on ownership of waters, easements relating to waters, use of public waters
and acquisitive prescription on the use of waters, which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Water Code.
Article 100 also repealed the Irrigation Law, Act No. 2152.

It is also noteworthy that section 3(e) of the Water Code recognizes that "preference in the use and
development of waters shall consider current usages and be responsive to the changing needs of the country".

You might also like