10/25/2016

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101

[No. L7510. March 30, 1957]

CARIDAD ONGSIACO, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants,
vs. EMILIA ONGSIACO, ET AL., defendants and
appellees.
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija (Civil Case No. 755), granting the motion to
dismiss the complaint of Caridad Ongsiaco and her
husband against her sister Emilia and the latter's
husband. The complaint alleged three (3) causes of
action. In the motion to dismiss it was alleged that all
the causes of action had become barred by extinctive
prescription. First Cause of Action: Alleged Revocation of
the Donation. The cause of action for the revocation of
the donation made by the donor, Gorgonia Vda. de
Ongsiaco, accrued from the time the donee, Emilia
Ongsiaco, failed to pay the yearly pension of P1,000 to
the donor, and that was on September 30, 1930; hence,
the action to revoke, being based on a written contract,
prescribed ten years thereafter, i.e., on September 30,,
1940, under sec. 43 of Act 190, long before the present
case was instituted. Second Cause of Action:
Construction of Dikes Interfering with Appellants'
Easement of Drainage. The basis of this cause of action
can only be the legal servitude of drainage of rural
estate regulated by Art. 552 of the Civil Code of 1889.
Since the enjoyment of this servitude does not depend
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 must be classed among the continuous
ones (Art. 532, old Civil Code; 615, new), and it is
subject to extinction by nonuser for the period required
by law (Art. 546), old Civil Code; Art. 631, new). The
original 20year period of extinctive prescription by
nonuser under Art. 546 of the old Code was reduced by
sec. 41 of Act 190 to ten years from their violation,
servitudes being clearly "interest in land." (Soriano vs.
Sternberg, 41 Phil., 211212). Since according to
plaintiffs' own evidence, the dikes obstructing the
overflow from their land were built in 1937 or 1938, and
the present action for their destruction was filed in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157fb769284d79c0a82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/2

10/25/2016

PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 101

1951, the lower court committed no error in holding that

the easement sought to be enforced had already been
extinguished, and plaintiffs' action is barred by
prescription. Third Cause of Action: Fraudulent
1197

Reduction of Appellant's Share and Its Usurpation by

Defendants. It is alleged that through. illegal
manipulations of defendant Alzate, husband of Emilia
Ongsiaco, the share of plaintiff Caridad Ongsiaco was made
to include public properties, thereby reducing its area,
while proportionately increasing that of defendants. 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.
Order affirmed. Reyes, J. B. L., J. ponente.

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000157fb769284d79c0a82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

2/2