NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority versus Secretary of Public Works and Communications

The Case

This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch Twelve, which annulled and set aside an administrative decision of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, the plaintiff and appellee, sued the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the defendant and appellant, after the Secretary ruled that the Authority was not entitled to priority in the use of the waters of the Angat River and ordered it to apply for water rights with the Bureau of Public Works. The case matters because it settles two questions every reviewee must know: when an appeal taken by registered mail on the last day of the reglementary period is deemed filed, and whether a long, open, and exclusive use of public waters may ripen into a right by prescription despite the Irrigation Law.

Procedural History

The controversy began with a letter complaint dated January 7, 1959, sent by the Project Engineer of the Angat River Irrigation System to the Director of Public Works, asking that representations be made to the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority to release enough water from the Ipo Dam to avert a crop failure in the Province of Bulacan. After a series of indorsements, the Acting Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications, acting for the Secretary, rendered an administrative decision declaring that the Authority was not entitled to priority in the use of the water and ordering it to apply for water rights with the Bureau of Public Works. The Authority's attempts to secure reconsideration proved futile, so it appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila under the Irrigation Law, forwarding its complaint by registered mail on the thirtieth and last day of the period allowed by law. The trial court found the defenses of the Secretary untenable and reversed the administrative decision. The case was then elevated directly to the Supreme Court, where the Secretary assigned as errors the timeliness of the appeal, the acquisition of the right to use the water by prescription, and the failure to dismiss the petition.

Facts

By Proclamation Number 5 of July 10, 1913, as amended by Proclamation Number 48 of November 10, 1922, the then Governor-General, General Leonard Wood, expressly declared, pursuant to the Irrigation Law, that for reasons of public policy he designated as exempt from appropriation and reserved for the use of the Metropolitan Water District of Manila a stated amount of water per second of time, or so much thereof as may be needed for domestic purposes, of the water of the Angat River in the Province of Bulacan. Later, Proclamation Number 72 of December 27, 1950 reserved a much larger volume of water per second for the Angat River Irrigation System.

From 1913 to 1959, a period of forty-six years, the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority and its predecessors in interest openly, publicly, and exclusively appropriated water from the Angat River without protest from anyone. One of the Secretary's own predecessors was even chairman of the plaintiff's Board of Directors when the Ipo Dam was built to divert the water of the Angat River into the plaintiff's aqueducts.

In 1959 the Angat River Irrigation System sought the release of more water to avert a crop failure in Bulacan, and the Authority refused because of the low water level in its reservoirs. The Secretary then ruled that the Authority had no priority and must apply for water rights, prompting the appeal to the courts.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal to the Court of First Instance was filed within the reglementary period, considering that the complaint was sent by registered mail on the last day allowed and there was no showing that the filing fees were simultaneously paid.
• Whether or not the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority acquired the right to use the waters of the Angat River by prescription, despite the application procedure under the Irrigation Law.
• Whether or not the petition should be dismissed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 141 provides:

If the fees are not paid, the court may refuse to proceed with the action until they are paid and may dismiss the appeal or the action or proceeding.

This provision bears on the first issue, because it shows that failure to pay docketing fees does not automatically result in dismissal but leaves the matter to the sound discretion of the court.

Section 14 of the Irrigation Law, Act Number 2152, provides:

Any person hereafter desiring to appropriate any public water shall previously make an application to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications through the Director of Public Works.

This provision bears on the second issue, because the Secretary invoked it to argue that prescription is not recognized as a mode of acquiring the use of public waters.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court overruled the Secretary. In appealed cases, failure to pay the docketing fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal; the dismissal is discretionary in the appellate court. The rule quoted above applies by analogy to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was exercising appellate jurisdiction conferred upon it by law to review administrative decisions under the Irrigation Law. The discretion of inferior courts is not to be interfered with in the absence of plain abuse thereof. Since under the Rules of Court the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing of any petition or pleading, the appeal was timely.

On the second issue, the Court held that the proclamation designating the water as exempt from appropriation and reserving it for the use of the Metropolitan Water District necessarily implied that the District was granted authority to withdraw and make exclusive use of that amount of water; otherwise the reservation and exemption would lose all significance. The proclamation amounted to an administrative concession in favor of the Metropolitan Water District, the predecessor of the Authority, and was entitled to priority over the similar reservation in favor of the Angat River Irrigation System, since it was made twenty-eight years earlier and the water was excluded from appropriation by anyone else other than the grantee. The Court rejected the argument that the District still had to apply to the Director of Public Works, since the Director could not refuse what the Chief Executive had granted, and an application would have been a useless ceremony and a total superfluity.

The Court further held that prescription was available as a mode of acquiring the use of public waters. The Irrigation Law nowhere provides that the procedure in its Section 14 shall be exclusive, and implied repeals are not favored. Both the old Civil Code and the Law of Waters recognized administrative concession and prescription as two ways of acquiring the right to use public waters, and the Civil Code of 1950 reiterated this dual source of title. The Court also ruled that prescription may be asserted even though the possession was not adverse against the Government, because the possession was adverse to the Angat River Irrigation System, the adversary in the proceedings, and the Authority had no need of holding adversely against the National Government since the latter had expressly granted it the prior use of the water.

On the third issue, the Court held that it was a mere consequence of the preceding ones and required no separate discussion.

Doctrine

First, failure to pay docketing fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal; dismissal is discretionary with the appellate court, and the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing. Second, a proclamation exempting water from appropriation and reserving it for a grantee amounts to a valid and operative administrative concession, and the grantee need not apply anew for water rights. Third, the procedure under Section 14 of the Irrigation Law is not exclusive, and prescription remains a mode of acquiring the right to use public waters, consistent with the dual juridical source of title recognized in the Civil Code. Fourth, prescription may be asserted even if the possession was not adverse against the Government, so long as it was adverse to the party contesting the right.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, without costs, holding that the Secretary's administrative decision was not in consonance with the applicable law.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Irrigation Law does not make its application procedure exclusive, so prescription still operates as a mode of acquiring the use of public waters. Examiners like to use this case on the timeliness of appeals by registered mail and on the coexistence of administrative concession and prescription as sources of water rights.