ONGSIAKO v.

ONGSIAKO
Natural Drainage | 30 March 1957 | J. Reyes

Nature of Case: Appeal

Digest maker: Africa

SUMMARY: A complaint was filed against the defendants on the ground of construction of
dikes interfering with easement of drainage, among other things. A motion to dismiss filed
on the ground of prescription was then granted. Court affirmed this ruling.

DOCTRINE: Since the enjoyment of legal servitude of drainage of rural estate does not de-
pend upon acts of man because descent of rain water from the higher to the lower estates is
due to the force of gravity, this easement falls under continuous easement, which is subject
to extinction by non-user for the period required by law.

FACTS:
1. Caridad filed a complaint against Emilia and the latter’s husband on three grounds: alleged
revocation of donation, construction of dikes interfering with her easement of drainage,
and fraudulent reduction of her share and its usurpation by the defendants.
2. A motion to dismiss was filed alleging that that these causes of actions were barred by pre-
scription. Granted, hence this appeal.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the causes of actions were barred by prescription — YES
- FIRST CAUSE: accrued from the time the donee, Emilia, failed to pay the yearly pension to
the donor, and that was on 30 September 1930. Under sec. 43 of Act 19, action to revoke,
being based on a written contract, prescribes in 10 years. In this case, it prescribed on 30
September 1940, long before the present case was instituted.
- SECOND CAUSE: The basis of this cause of action is the legal servitude of drainage of rural
estate. Since the enjoyment of this servitude does not depend upon acts of man because de-
scent of rain water from the higher to the lower estates is due to the force of gravity, this
easement falls under continuous easement, which is subject to extinction by non-user for the
period required by law. The original 20-year period of extinctive prescription by non-user
was reduced by sec. 41 of Act 190 to ten years from their violation. Since the dikes obstruct-
ing the overflow from their land were built in 1937 or 1938, and the present action for their
destruction was filed in 1951, the lower court didn’t err in holding that the easement sought
to be enforced had already been extinguished, and plaintiffs' action is barred by prescrip-
tion.
- THIRD CAUSE: When the present case was instituted in 1951, more than 20 years had run
since the partition. Hence, this cause of action is barred by prescription.

RULING: CA ruling AFFIRMED.