The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an irrigation aqueduct and a

dam on the lands of defendant for a period of more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the
plaintiff by virtue of prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a corresponding
servitude.

Case 2 RELOVA VS. LAVAREZ

FACTS:

Relova owns a rice land cultivated by water from River Bangcabangca through an
aqueduct which passes over Lavarez’s land. A dam controls the flow of water in
Lavarez land and this dam was destroyed by one of the defendants. Water escaped by
the drainage ditch and no water then flowed on Relova’s land. Because of this, Relova
was unable to raise his crops.

TC: Found that the dam and aqueduct had been in use by Relova for more than 30 years
and that he had an easement in the land of Lavarez for the maintenance of the said
aqueduct and dam. It restrained Lavarez from interfering with the Relova’s right to use
of water in the aqueduct. Lavarez alleges that Relova is not the owner of any lands
watered by the aqueduct of the class known as padagat (May). Also that Relova didn’t
suffer damages by the destruction of the dam because all the lands cultivated by the
water are binangbang (August and September). The destruction of the dam on May
could not have damaged Relova’s land at that time. Also there is no servitude
established in favor of the land of Relova.

ISSUE:

W/N there was servitude established on Lavarez’s land in favor of Relova.

HELD:

Yes, there is servitude established on Lavarez’s land

The aqueduct and dam have been in existence for more than 30 years during which the
owner of the land in question has always exercised the right to reasonable use of the
water in the aqueduct for irrigation purposes.

Art. 530 of the Civil Code states that the existence of servitude cannot be established
unless it appears that a benefit was or might be derived by the plaintiff landowner. The
aperture in the dam is used to control the flow of water in the aqueduct and to prevent
damage to the lowlands. The aqueduct could never have been for the benefit of Relova
because his land was higher than Lavarez’s. These contentions cannot be maintained.
Lavarez may have the right to open the aperture in the dam to prevent destructive flow
of water but this doesn’t give them the right to stop the flow of water. Relova is entitled
to the benefit of reasonable use of water from the aqueduct provided the flow of water
was properly regulated by the opening of the aperture of the dam.