Short answer. Yes. Article 646 declares the easement of aqueduct continuous and apparent for legal purposes even though the water flow is not continuous, or its use depends on the needs of the dominant estate, or on a schedule of alternate days or hours. Intermittent flow does not change its legal classification.
What the law says
For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as continuous and apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous, or its use depends upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours.
Civil Code, Article 646 — Aqueduct Treated as Continuous and Apparent. Read the full provision →
The classification is fixed by law, not by the water schedule
Article 646 settles the classification question directly rather than leaving it to be inferred from how the water actually flows. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as continuous and apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous, or its use depends upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days or hours. The legal label of 'continuous and apparent' is assigned by this article specifically, regardless of what the actual pattern of water use looks like on the ground.
Three specific scenarios are covered, all treated the same way
The article names three situations that might otherwise suggest the easement is intermittent or hidden rather than continuous and apparent: water that does not flow continuously, use that depends on the dominant estate's actual needs, and use that follows a schedule of alternate days or hours. All three are expressly declared not to change the classification. Whichever of these describes your aqueduct's actual operation, the legal treatment as continuous and apparent stays the same.
Why the classification matters beyond labeling
Whether an easement is continuous or discontinuous, and apparent or non-apparent, generally affects how it can be acquired and how visibly its existence must be established. By fixing the aqueduct easement as continuous and apparent regardless of the water's actual flow pattern, Article 646 removes an argument that might otherwise be raised — that intermittent or scheduled water use makes the easement legally invisible or non-continuous in a way that would change the rules applicable to it.
What this means for your situation
If you are dealing with an aqueduct easement where water does not run constantly, or where the schedule follows alternating days or hours, or where use simply tracks whatever the dominant estate currently needs, none of that changes its status as a continuous and apparent easement under this article. You do not need to establish continuous physical water flow to maintain that classification — the statute has already settled that question for you.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, namely: Cebu, Batowa-an, et al., all surnamed Macabangkit, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →