Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > August 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18404 August 31, 1965 - CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18404. August 31, 1965.]

CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Tirzo Espeleta, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Zambarrano & Pama for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. IRRIGATION DAMS; ACTION FOR REMOVAL, WHEN PREMATURE. — Appellees filed with the Bureau of Public Works an application for water rights for irrigation purposes, to which appellants interposed an opposition. Before said application could be decided, appellants filed an action for the removal and demolition of the dams constructed by appellees. Held: As appellants filed a formal opposition to appellee’s application for water rights, they should have waited for the adjudication of said application before resorting to the courts. As a matter of fact, if said application was denied, the Department of Public Works and Communications could order the removal of the offending constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 2, Republic Act No. 2056, thus making it unnecessary for appellants to resort to the courts.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal taken by Cesar Ledesma and Milagros L. Javellana from the order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Civil Case No. 5473 entitled Cesar Ledesma, Et. Al. v. Concepcion Vda. de Opinion, Et. Al. dismissing their complaint. The following portion of said order gives the reasons in support thereof:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Inasmuch as the herein petitioner had invoked the provisions of Rep. Act 2056 wherein the Secretary of Public Works and Communications is duly authorized to order the removal of any dam, dike or any other works, such administrative remedy should first be exhausted before herein petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in order to review the decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications in accordance with our procedural laws. By availing of the administrative remedies, the herein petitioner should follow the remedies as provided for by Rep. Act 2056 and that in so far as the administrative remedies are concerned the decision of said Secretary if duly affirmed by the higher authorities, is considered valid and legal. On the other hand, if the purpose of the present action is to question the legality of the proceeding had before the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, said official should have been included as party in this action after the administrative remedies have been exhausted."cralaw virtua1aw library

On June 11, 1960, appellants filed a complaint against appellees Concepcion Vda. de Opinion, her son, Serafin Opinion, Jr. and her overseer, Obe Acanicula, for the removal and demolition of the dams described therein, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, plus damages and attorney’s fees. The complaint alleged that appellants and appellee Concepcion Vda. de Opinion were the registered owners and in possession of sparsely scattered parcels of land which formerly formed part of a big estate known as Haciendas Lanhagan and Pinangtan, situated in the municipality of Ajuy, province of Iloilo; that serving as the dividing and boundary line on the northern side of these properties was the Pinangtan Creek, a stream of water of the public domain; that on May 11, 1960, appellees, in violation of the provisions of the Irrigation Act No. 2152, as amended, and of an order of the Department of Public Works and Communications dated May 11, 1960 (Annex A of the complaint), constructed a concrete dam across the Pinangtan Creek which caused its waters to overflow through the lower banks, thereby inundating appellant’s properties and destroying their palay crop; that appellees have likewise constructed a dike or pavement along the stretch of the old farm road serving as dividing line of the properties of appellants and appellees within the area, on top of which pavement the latter proposed to open a canal to serve as irrigation conduit to irrigate their lands further down, which construction had caused the rain coming from higher elevations to fall upon appellant’s lands, converting the area into a veritable lagoon and causing them damages in the sum of P5,000.00.

Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the persons and the subject matter of the action, and that the complaint stated no cause of action.

On July 30, 1960, the court issued the appealed order dismissing the complaint mainly on the ground that the action was filed prematurely because of the pendency of appellees’ water rights application filed with the Bureau of Public Works to divert water from the Tanduyan and Pinangtan Creeks for irrigation purposes — to which appellants had filed an opposition — and on the further ground that appellants had not exhausted all available administrative remedies.

It is not denied that prior to the filing of the present action, appellant Ledesma filed a letter-complaint with the Bureau of Public Works requesting that the office of the District Irrigation Engineer of the Western Visayas Irrigation District, Iloilo, order the demolition of the dams and canals in question. In view thereof, appellee Serafin Opinion, Jr., on April 16, 1959, filed with the Bureau of Public Works an application for water rights on the Tanduyan Creek for irrigation purposes, to which application appellant Ledesma interposed an opposition. The administrative complaint of Ledesma, as well as the water rights application of Opinion and Ledesma’s opposition thereto, were jointly heard before an investigator of the Department of Public Works and Communications. On June 16, 1960, the acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Premises considered, it is hereby ordered that respondent (Serafin Opinion, Jr.) refrain from diverting water from the creeks involved, pending the approval of his water rights application on the Tanduyan and Pinangtan Creeks, and should not be allowed to operate the systems to safeguard the unobstructed flow of water, otherwise criminal action shall be instituted against him, pursuant to Section 47 of Act 2152. It is further ordered that the Director of Public Works expedite respondent’s pending water rights application in order to safeguard the rights and properties of all concerned."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the decision above mentioned the Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications ruled that the constructions there and here in question were illegal, but while he ordered appellee Opinion Jr. to refrain from operating or using them, the prohibition was only during the pendency of his application for water rights. The decision also refused to order the removal of said constructions, firstly, because they did not prejudice any existing rights; secondly, because their removal would cause big losses to the Opinions; and lastly, because if the latter’s application for water rights was granted, they would be entitled to operate and use said constructions.

Considering the circumstance that appellant herein filed a formal opposition to the Opinion’s application for water rights mentioned heretofore — whose disposal the Department of Public Works and Communications had ordered the Director of Public Works to expedite in order to safeguard the rights and properties affected — We believe with the trial court that appellant should have waited for the adjudication of said application before resorting to the courts. As a matter of fact, if said application was denied, the Department of Public Works and Communications could order the removal of the offending constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2, Republic Act No. 2056, thus making it unnecessary for appellants to resort to the courts.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.

Barrera, J., is on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-24012 & L-24040 August 9, 1965 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19807 August 10, 1965 - AGUSTIN O. CASENAS v. DIONISIO CABIGUEN

  • G.R. No. L-20170 August 10, 1965 - BERT R. BAGANO v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17022 August 14, 1965 - SOLIS & YARISANTOS v. LIBERATO SALVADOR, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18833 August 14, 1965 - HONESTO ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. PEDRO K. ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-19072 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. L-19598 August 14, 1965 - ILUMINADA SANTIAGO, ET AL v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19940 August 14, 1965 - FERNANDEZ KIDPALOS v. BAGUIO GOLD MINING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20124 August 14, 1965 - NELITA MORENO VDA. DE BACALING v. GSIS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20735 August 14, 1965 - GLICERIA C. LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. L-20806-07 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO DAYDAY, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20986 August 14, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20844 August 14, 1965 - ANGELITA F. RIVERA v. LORETO LUCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-21014 August 14, 1965 - PHIL. FARMING CORP. LTD. v. ALEJANDRO LLANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21506 August 14, 1956

    FELICISIMA MANUBAY v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16903 August 31, 1965 - MANILA PENCIL CO., INC., ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17517 August 31, 1965 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL v. ENRIQUE BALMOJA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18087 August 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO A. CONSIGNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18156 August 31, 1965 - MAXIMO BAQUIRAN v. HON. WENCESLAO ORTEGA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18404 August 31, 1965 - CESAR LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18786 August 31, 1965 - ROMAN F. DIONISIO v. SOCORRO FRANCISCO VDA. DE DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. L-19207 August 31, 1965 - MARSMAN & CO., INC., ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO SYQUIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19382 August 31, 1965 - FILOMENA ABELLANA DE BACAYO v. GAUDENCIA FERRARIS DE BORROMEO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19445 August 31, 1965 - CIR v. BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DIST. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19766 August 31, 1965 - FERMIN DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19922 August 31, 1965 - ERNESTO CLOMA, ET AL v. AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20290 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: PANTALEON SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20469 August 31, 1965 - PEDRO C. PASTORAL v. MUTUAL SEC. INS. CORP., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20482 August 31, 1965 - IN RE: SATURNINO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20491 August 31, 1965 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFTG. CO., INC. v. NAT. ADMI. OF REG’L. OFF. No. 2, Dept. of Labor, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20612 August 31, 1965 - FELIX A. YUBOCO, ET AL v. JOSE L. MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20630 August 31, 1965 - C. N. HODGES, ET AL v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20685 August 31, 1965 - CATALINA VDA. DE VISMANOS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20901 August 31, 1965 - CIRIACA SANTOS v. TEODORICA DUATA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20998 August 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORP. v. DEMETRIA OQUERIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21186 August 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO ARROYO v. HON. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22221 August 31, 1965 - PARKE, DAVIS & CO. v. DOCTORS’ PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22425 August 31, 1965 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. NICOLAS L. CUENCA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23476 August 31, 1965 - ARISTOTLE TUASON v. HON. CALIXTO O. ZALDIVAR