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 non-user for the period required by law (Art. 546), old Civil Code; Art. 631, new). The original 20-year period of extinc-tive prescription by non-user 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., 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 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.