Liwag Vs Happy Glen Loop

[ G.R. No.
189755, July 04, 2012 ]
EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS: The controversy stems from a water facility in Happy Glen Loop which is situated in
Deparo, Caloocan City.
Sometime in 1978, F.G.R. Sales, the original developer of Happy Glen Loop assigned to
Ernesto Marcelo, the owner of T.P. Marcelo Realty Corporation all its rights over several
parcels of land in the Subdivision, as well as receivables from the lots already sold as
payment to a pre-existing loan. Marcelo became as the successor-in-interest of the original
developer. In 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block No. 5 to Hermogenes Liwag with the Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. C-350099. When Hermogenes died in 2003, petitioner Emeteria
P. Liwag, wife of Hermogenes, demanded the removal of the overhead water tank from the
subject parcel of land. For almost 30 years, the residents of the Subdivision relied on this
facility as their only source of water. This fact was known to Marcelo and Liwag.
Refusing to comply with petitioner’s demand, respondent Association filed before the HLURB
an action for specific performance; confirmation, maintenance and donation of water
facilities; annulment of sale; and cancellation of TCT No. 350099 against T.P. Marcelo
Realty Corporation, petitioner Emeteria, and the other surviving heirs of Hermogenes.
After the parties submitted their respective position papers, Housing and Land Use Arbiter
Joselito Melchor (Arbiter Melchor) ruled in favor of the Association. He invalidated the
transfer of the parcel of land as void ab initio in favor of Hermogenes. The HLURB Board of
Commissioners, upon appeal, reversed the abovementioned decision.
Respondent Association interposed an appeal to the Office of the President, which set aside
the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners and affirmed that of the Housing and
Land Use Arbiter. Petitioner Liwag unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration then filed a
Rule 43 Petition for Review before the CA.
The CA affirmed that the HLURB possessed jurisdiction to invalidate the sale of the subject
parcel of land to Hermogenes and to invalidate the issuance of TCT No. C-350099 pursuant
thereto.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar.
2. Whether or not an easement for water facility exists on the subject parcel of land.
3. Whether or not the subject parcel of land qualifies as an open space.
4. Whether or not the subject parcel of land is beyond the commerce of man and its
sale is prohibited under the law
RULING:
1. YES. HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar.

P.D. 957 was promulgated to closely regulate real estate subdivision and condominium
businesses. Its provisions were intended to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions
and condominiums. The decree aimed to provide for an appropriate government agency, the
HLURB, to which aggrieved parties in transactions involving subdivisions and condominiums
may take recourse.
2. YES. An easement for water facility exists on the subject parcel of land.
Easements or servitudes are encumbrances imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to a different owner, for the benefit of a community, or for
the benefit of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
In this case, the water facility is an encumbrance on Lot 11, Block 5 of the Subdivision for
the benefit of the community. It is continuous and apparent, because it is used incessantly
without human intervention, and because it is continually kept in view by the overhead
water tank, which reveals its use to the public.
3. YES. The subject parcel of land qualifies as open space.
The term “open space” is defined in P.D. 1216 as “an area reserved exclusively for parks,
playgrounds, recreational uses, schools, roads, places of worship, hospitals, health
centers, barangay centers and other similar facilities and amenities.
The decree makes no specific mention of areas reserved for water facilities. Therefore, we
resort to statutory construction to determine whether these areas fall under “other
similar facilities and amenities.”
The basic statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis states that where a

general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same
class, the general word or phrase is to be construed to include – or to be restricted to –
things akin to or resembling, or of the same kind or class as, those specifically mentioned.
Applying this principle to the afore-quoted Section 1 of P.D. 1216, we find that the
enumeration refers to areas reserved for the common welfare of the community. Thus, the
phrase “other similar facilities and amenities” should be interpreted in like manner.
Here, the water facility was undoubtedly established for the benefit of the community.
Water is a basic need in human settlements, without which the community would not
survive. We therefore rule that, based on the principle of ejusdem generis and taking into
consideration the intention of the law to create and maintain a healthy environment in
human settlements, the location of the water facility in the Subdivision must form part of
the area reserved for open space.
4. YES. The subject parcel of land is beyond the commerce of man and its
sale is prohibited under the law.
The law expressly provides that open spaces in subdivisions are reserved for public use and
are beyond the commerce of man. As such, these open spaces are not susceptible of private
ownership and appropriation. We therefore rule that the sale of the subject parcel of land by
the subdivision owner or developer to petitioner’s late husband was contrary to law. Hence,
we find no reversible error in the appellate court’s Decision upholding the HLURB Arbiter’s
annulment of the Deed of Sale.
The instant Petition for Review is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in are hereby AFFIRMED.

Liwag Vs Happy Glen Loop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liwag Vs Happy Glen Loop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[ G.R. No.

189755, July 04, 2012 ]

EMETERIA LIWAG, PETITIONER, VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS

1. YES. HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar.

3. YES. The subject parcel of land qualifies as open space.

The basic statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis states that where a

You might also like