Property Case # 28. Lunod v.

Meneses
EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4223. August 19, 1908.]

NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. HIGINO MENESES, defendant-appellant.

TORRES, J

1. REALTY; EASEMENT OF NATURAL. DRAINAGE. — Where a statutory easement exists between adjoining estates, the owner of
the lower lands must not construct any work that may impair or obstruct an easement which consists in receiving the waters which
naturally, and without the intervention of man, descend from the more elevated lands, neither shall the owner of the latter construct any
work that may increase the easement. (Arts. 552 and 563 of the Civil Code, and Law of Waters of August 3, 1866.)

2. ID.; RIGHTS OF OWNER SUBJECT TO EXISTING SERVITUDES. — Every owner may enclose his property by means of walls,
dikes, fences, or any other device, but his right is limited by the easement with which his estate is charged.

On the 14th of March, 1904, Nicolas Lunod, Juan de la Vega, Evaristo Rodriguez, Fernando Marcelo, Esteban Villena, Benito Litao,
Ventura Hernandez, and Casimiro Pantanilla, residents of the town of Bulacan, province of the same name, filed a written complaint
against Higino Meneses, alleging that they each owned and possessed farm lands, situated in the places known as Maytunas and
Balot, near a small lake named Calalaran; that the defendant is the owner of a fish-pond and a strip of land situated in Paraanan,
adjoining the said lake on one side, and the River Taliptip on the other; that from time immemorial, and consequently for more than
twenty years before 1901, there existed and still exists in favor of the rice fields of the plaintiffs a statutory easement permitting the flow
of water over the said land in Paraanan, which easement the said plaintiffs enjoyed until the year 1901 and consisted in that the water
collected upon their lands and in the Calalaran Lake flow through Paraanan into the Taliptip River. From that year however, the
defendant, without any right or reason, converted the land in Paraanan into a fishpond and by means of a dam and a bamboo net,
prevented the free passage of the water through said place into the Taliptip River, that in consequence the lands of the plaintiff became
flooded and damaged by the stagnant waters, there being no outlet except through the land in Paraanan; that their plantation were
destroyed, causing the loss and damages to the extent of about P1,000, which loss and damage will continue if the obstructions to the
flow of the water are allowed to remain, preventing its passage through said land and injuring the rice plantations of the plaintiffs. They
therefore asked that judgment be entered against the defendant, declaring that the said tract of land in Paraanan is subject to a
statutory easement permitting the flow of water from the property of the plaintiffs, and that, without prejudice to the issuing of a
preliminary injunction, the defendant be ordered to remove and destroy the obstructions that impede the passage of the waters through
Paraanan, and that in future, and forever, he abstain from closing in any manner the aforesaid tract of land; that, upon judgment being
entered, the said injunction be declared to be final and that the defendant be sentenced to pay to the plaintiffs an indemnity of P1,000,
and the costs in the proceedings; that they be granted any other and further equitable or proper remedy in accordance with the facts
alleged and proven.

In view of the demurrer interposed by the plaintiffs to the answer of the defendant, the latter, on the 29th of August, 1904, filed an
amended answer, denying each and everyone of the allegations of the complaint, and alleged that no statutory easement existed nor
could exist in favor of the lands described in the complaint, permitting the waters to flow over the fish pond that he, together with his
brothers, owned in the sitio of Bambang, the area and boundaries of which were stated by him, and which he and his brothers had
inherited from their deceased mother.

Apolinara de Leon; that the same had been surveyed by a land surveyor in September, 1881, he also denied that he had occupied or
converted any land in the barrio of Bambang into a fishpond; therefore, and to sentence the plaintiffs to pay the costs and
corresponding damages.

Upon the evidence adduced by both parties to the suit, the court, on the 13th of March, 1907, entered judgment declaring that the
plaintiffs were entitled to a decision in their favor, and sentenced the defendant to remove the dam placed on the east of the Paraanan
passage on the side of the Taliptip River opposite the old dam in the barrio of Bambang, as well as to remove and destroy the obstacles
to the free passage of the waters through the strip of land in Paraanan; to abstain in future, and forever, from obstructing or closing in
any manner the course of the waters through the said strip of land. The request that the defendant be sentenced to pay an indemnity
was denied, and no ruling was made as to costs.

The defendant excepted to the above judgment and furthermore asked for a new trial which was denied and also excepted to, and,
upon approval of the bill of exceptions, the question was submitted to this court.

Notwithstanding the defendant's denial in his amended answer, it appears to have been clearly proven in this case that the lands
owned by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid barrio, as well as the small adjoining lake, named Calalaran, are located in places relatively
higher than the sitio called Paraanan where the land and fish pond of the defendant are situated, and which border on the Taliptip
River; that during the rainy season the rain water which falls on he land of the plaintiffs, and which flows toward the small Calalaran
Lake at flood time, has no outlet to the Taliptip River other than through the low land of Paraanan: that the border line between
Calalaran and Paraanan there has existed from time immemorial a dam, constructed by the community for the purpose of preventing
the salt waters from the Taliptip River, at high tide, from flooding the land in Calalaran, passing through the lowlands of Paraanan; but
when rainfall was abundant, one of the residents was designated in his turn by the lieutenant or justice of the barrio to open the sluice
gate in order to let out the water that flooded the rice fields, through the land of Paraanan to the above-mentioned river, that since 1901,
the defendant constructed another dam along the boundary of this fishpond in Paraanan, thereby impeding the outlet of the waters that
flood the fields of Calalaran, to the serious detriment of the growing crops.

According to article 530 of the Civil Code, an easement is charge imposed upon one estate for the benefit of another estate belonging
to a different owner, and the realty in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant estate, and the one charged
with it the servient estate.

The lands of Paraanan being the lower are subject to the easement of receiving and giving passage to the waters proceeding from the
higher lands and the lake of Calalaran; this easement was not constituted by agreement between the interested parties; it is of a
statutory nature, and the law had imposed it for the common public utility in view of the difference in the altitude of the lands in the
barrio Bambang.

Article 552 of the Civil code provides:

Lower estates must receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as
the stone or earth which they carry with them.
 Property Case # 28. Lunod v. Meneses

Neither may the owner of the lower estates construct works preventing this easement, nor the one of the higher estate works increasing
the burden.

Article 563 of the said code reads also:

The establishment, extent, form, and conditions of the easements of waters to which this section refers shall be governed by the special
law relating thereto in everything not provided for in this code.

The special law cited in the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, article 111 of which, treating of natural easements relating to waters,
provides:

Lands situated at a lower level are subject to receive the waters that flow naturally, without the work of man, from the higher lands
together with the stone or earth which they carry with them.

Hence, the owner of the lower lands can not erect works that will impede or prevent such an easement or charge, constituted and
imposed by the law upon his estate for the benefit of the higher lands belonging to different owners; neither can the latter do anything to
increase or extend the easement.

According to the provisions of law above referred to, the defendant, Meneses, had no right to construct the works, nor the dam which
blocks the passage, through his lands and the outlet to the Taliptip River, of the waters which flood the higher lands of the plaintiffs; and
having done so, to the detriment of the easement charged on his estate, he has violated the law which protects and guarantees the
respective rights and regulates the duties of the owners of the fields in Calalaran and Paraanan.

It is true that article 388 of said code authorizes every owner to enclose his estate by means of walls, ditches fences or any other
device, but his right is limited by the easement imposed upon his estate.

The defendant Meneses might have constructed the works necessary to make and maintain a fish pond within his own land, but he was
always under the strict and necessary obligation to respect the statutory easement of waters charged upon his property, and had no
right to close the passage and outlet of the waters flowing from the lands of the plaintiffs and the lake of Calalaran into the Taliptip
River. He could not lawfully injure the owners of the dominant estates by obstructing the outlet to the Taliptip River of the waters
flooding the upper lands belonging to the plaintiffs.

It is perhaps useful and advantageous to the plaintiffs and other owners of high lands in Calalaran, in addition to the old dike between
the lake of said place and the low lands in Paraanan, to have another made by the defendant at the border of Paraanan adjoining the
said river, for the purpose of preventing the salt waters of the Taliptip River flooding, at high tide, not only the lowlands in Paraanan but
also the higher ones of Calalaran and its lake, since the plaintiffs can not prevent the defendant from protecting his lands against the
influx of salt water; but the defendant could never be permitted to obstruct the flow of the waters through his lands to the Taliptip River
during the heavy rains, when the high lands in Calalaran and the lake in said place are flooded, thereby impairing the right of the
owners of the dominant estates.

For the above reasons, and accepting the findings of the court below in the judgment appealed from in so far as they agree with the
terms of this decision, we must and do hereby declare that the defendant, Higino Meneses, as the owner of the servient estate, is
obliged to give passage to and allow the flow of the waters descending from the Calalaran Lake and from the land of the plaintiffs
through his lands in Paraanan for their discharge into the Taliptip River; and he is hereby ordered to remove any obstacle that may
obstruct the free passage of the waters whenever there may be either a small or large volume of running water through his lands in the
sitio of Paraanan for their discharge into the Taliptip River; and in future to abstain from impeding, in any manner, the flow of the waters
coming from the higher lands. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, in so far as it agrees with decision, and reversed in other
respects, with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.