G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970
CRISPINA SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, and DAMASO MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Crispina Salazar is the owner of Lot 436 in Balanga, Bataan, acquired in 1949. Respondent Guillermo Gutierrez is the owner of the adjacent Lot 433, which he inherited in 1927, with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1059 issued in his name in 1928. Lot 433 was originally registered under the Torrens system on July 23, 1923, with Original Certificate of Title 2162. No annotation of any lien or encumbrance appears on either title. Prior to the controversy, Lot 436 and surrounding estates were irrigated with water from Sapang Tuyo, a public stream, flowing through a dike traversing several lots, including Lot 433. A canal branching from this dike on Lot 433 ran across the rest of Lot 433 up to Lot 436, irrigating Lot 436. On February 24, 1953, respondent Damaso Mendoza, lessee of Lot 433, demolished this canal, stopping the water flow to Lot 436. After Salazar’s requests to rebuild were refused, she filed a suit praying for restoration of the canal, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance of Bataan ruled in favor of Salazar, finding the canal had existed for over thirty years and was part of an irrigation system for multiple lots. It ordered the defendants to restore the canal, annotate the encumbrance on the title, and pay damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the easement of aqueduct was voluntary and was extinguished when Lot 433 was registered in 1923 without the easement annotated as an encumbrance, pursuant to Section 39 of Act No. 496 .

ISSUE

Whether the easement of aqueduct over Lot 433 for the benefit of Lot 436 is a legal (compulsory) easement that was not extinguished by the registration of Lot 433 without annotation.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The Court ruled that the easement of aqueduct in question is a legal easement, not a voluntary one. The Court found that the petitioner had acquired the right to use the water from Sapang Tuyo through prescription, having enjoyed it continuously for at least thirty years, which satisfies the requisites under Articles 642 and 643 of the Civil Code for a legal easement. The Court held that the registration of Lot 433 in 1923 without annotation did not extinguish this legal easement. Furthermore, respondent Gutierrez, as a successor-in-interest by inheritance, was not an innocent third party but was aware of the easement’s existence and allowed it to continue for twenty-six years after acquiring title, thus being bound by it. The respondents were ordered to restore the canal at their expense, cause the annotation of the encumbrance on the title, and pay the awarded damages.