Valisno v. Adriano

NICOLAS VALISNO
VS.
FELIPE ADRIANO
G.R. NO. L-37409, MAY 23, 1988
FACTS
◦ Nicolas Valisno is the owner and actual possessor of a 557,949-square-meter parcel of land
in La Fuente, Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija. Valisno bought the land from Honorata Adriano
Francisco, on June 6,1959.
◦ The land which is planted with watermelon, peanuts, corn, tobacco, and other vegetables
adjoins that of the appellee Felipe Adriano on the bank of the Pampanga River.
◦ 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
Adriano’s land.
◦ On December 16, 1959, Felipe Adriano levelled a portion of the irrigation canal so that the
appellant was deprived of the irrigation water and prevented from cultivating his 57-hectare
land.
FACTS
◦ Valisno filed a complaint in the Bureau of Public Works and Communication for
deprivation of water rights. The Decision ordered Adriano to reconstruct the irrigation
canal ”, however, instead of restoring the irrigation canal, Adriano asked for a reinvestigation of
the case.
◦ In the meantime, plaintiff Valisno rebuilt the irrigation canal at his own expense because
his need for water to irrigate his watermelon fields was urgent.
◦ On June 20, 1960, Valisno filed a complaint for damages in the CFI of Nueva Ecija
claiming that he suffered damages when he failed to plant his fields that year (1960) for
lack of irrigation water and for reconstructing the canal on defendant Adriano's land.
FACTS
◦ The Secretary of Public Works and Communications reversed the Bureau's decision and held that
Edriano 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. Valisno, as vendee of the land which Honorata
received from her father's estate did not acquire any water rights with the land purchased.
◦ The trial court held that Valisno had no right to pass through the Adriano’s land to draw water
from the Pampanga River. It dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.
◦ Valisno’s motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by the trial court, hence Valisno
appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to the Supreme Court upon the legal
question of whether the provisions of the Irrigation Act (Act No. 2152) or those of the Civil Code
should apply to this case.
ISSUE
Whether or not Valisno has water rights over the irrigation

canal. (YES)
RULING
◦ The existence of the irrigation canal on Felipe Adriano’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:
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 the
easement may continue actively and passively, unless at the time, the ownership 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.
RULING
◦ The deed of sale in favor of Valisno included the “conveyance and transfer of the water rights and
improvements” pertinent to Honorata’s property. By the terms of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the vendor
Honorata Adriano sold, ceded, conveyed and transferred to Dr. Nicolas Valisno ”all rights, title, interest
and participations over the parcel of land above- described, together with irrigation equipment”
and the water rights and such other improvements appertaining to the property subject of this sale.
◦ According to the Valisno, the water right was the primary consideration for his purchase of Honorata’s
property, for without it the property would be unproductive.
RULING
◦ 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
◦ As an easement of waters in favor of Valisno has been established, he is entitled to enjoy it free from
obstruction, disturbance or wrongful interference, such as the Felipe Adriano’s act of levelling the
irrigation canal to deprive him of the use of water from the Pampanga River.
◦ The appealed decision is set aside, and a new one is entered ordering Felipe Adriano to grant Valisno
continued and unimpeded use of the irrigation ditch traversing his land in order to obtain water
from the Pampanga River to irrigate appellant's land.

Valisno v. Adriano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valisno v. Adriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NICOLAS VALISNO

Whether or not Valisno has water rights over the irrigation

You might also like