Philipine Reports Citation: 101 Phil.

1196-1197 (Unreported Case)

Ponente: Justice J.B.L Reyes
CARIDAD ONGSIACO, ET. AL., plaintiffs appellants
vs.
EMILIA ONGSIACO, ET. AL., defendants appellees
GR. No. 7510, 30 March 1957
Appeal from an order of the Court of the 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 latters 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.
1. 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 PhP1,000 to the
donor, and that was on 30 September 1930. Hence, the action to revoke, being based on a
written contract, prescribed ten years thereafter, i.e., on 30 September 1940, under sec. 43
of Act 190, long before the present case was instituted.
2. Second Cause of Action: Construction of the 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 1889 Civil Code (The Old Civil Code). 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 (Article 532, Old Civil Code; Article 615,
New Civil Code), and it is subject to extinction by non-user for the period required by
law (Article 546, Old Civil Code; Article 631, New Civil Code). The original 20-year
period of extinctive prescription by non-user under Article 546 of the Old Civil 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. 211-212). 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 1951, the lower court
committed no error in holding that the easement sought to be enforced had already been
extinguished, and the plaintiffs action is barred by prescription.
3. Third Cause of Action: Fraudulent Reduction of Appellants Share and Its Usurpation by
the Defendants. It is alleged that through illegal manipulations of defendant Alzate,
husband of Emilia Ongsiaco, the share of the plaintiff Caridad Ongsiaco was made to
include public properties, thereby reducing its area, while proportionately increasing that
of the 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.
The order of Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija is AFFIRMED.