8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

G.R. No. 189755. July 4, 2012.*

EMETERIA LIWAG, petitioner, vs. HAPPY GLEN LOOP

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.

Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); Jurisdiction; The

Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has exclusive
jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision
developer and the lot buyer, or those aimed at compelling the subdivision
developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make
the Subdivision a better place to live in.—It is worthy to note that the
HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts
between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer, or those aimed at
compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and
statutory obligations to make the Subdivision a better place to live in. This
interpretation is in line with one of P.D. 957’s “Whereas clauses.”
Civil Law; Property; Easements; 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 encum-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

745

VOL. 675, JULY 4, 2012 745

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

bered estate does not belong.—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. The law provides that easements may be continuous or
discontinuous and apparent or non-apparent.
Statutory Construction; Ejusdem Generis; 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

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.—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.
Civil Law; Property; Easements; The law expressly provides that open
spaces in subdivisions are reserved for public use and are beyond the
commerce of man.—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.
Land Titles; Torrens Title; There is an attack on the title when the
object of an action is to nullify a Torrens title, thus challenging the judgment
or proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed.—The rule that a
collateral attack against a Torrens title is prohibited by law finds no
application to this case. There is an attack on the title when the object of an
action is to nullify a Torrens title, thus challenging the judgment or
proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. In the present case, this
action is not an attack against the validity of the Torrens title, because it
does not question the judgment or proceeding that led to the issuance of the
title.

746

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

Rather, this action questions the validity of the transfer of land from
Marcelo to petitioner’s husband. As there is no attack—direct or collateral
—against the title, petitioner’s argument holds no water.
Same; Same; The principle of indefeasibility of title is not absolute,
and there are well-defined exceptions to this rule.—The principle of
indefeasibility of title is not absolute, and there are well-defined exceptions
to this rule. In Aqualab Philippines, Inc. v. Heirs of Pagobo, 603 SCRA 435
(2009), we ruled that this defense does not extend to a transferee who takes
the title with knowledge of a defect in that of the transferee’s predecessor-
in-interest.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

SERENO, J.:
This Rule 45 Petition assails the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 100454. The CA affirmed
with modification the Decision3 and Order4 of the Office of the
President (O.P.) in OP Case No. 05-G-224, which had set aside the
Decision5 of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLURB Case No. REM-A-
041210-0261 and affirmed the De-

_______________
1  CA Decision dated 13 March 2009, penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de
Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto
C. Marella, Jr.; Rollo, pp. 38-54.
2 CA Resolution on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated 18 September
2009, Rollo, pp. 55-56.
3 Decision of the OP dated 5 March 2007; Rollo, pp. 127-134.
4 Order of the OP dated 26 July 2007; Rollo, pp. 135-137.
5  HLURB Board of Commissioners Decision dated 7 June 2005, rendered by
Commissioners Romulo Q. Fabul, Teresita A. Desierto, Francisco L. Dagnalan (no
signature) and Jesus Y. Pang; Rollo, pp. 120-123.

747

VOL. 675, JULY 4, 2012 747

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

cision6 of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter in HLURB Case No.
REM-030904-12609.
The controversy stems from a water facility in Happy Glen Loop
Subdivision (the Subdivision), which is situated in Deparo,
Caloocan City.
Sometime in 1978, F.G.R. Sales, the original developer of Happy
Glen Loop, obtained a loan from Ernesto Marcelo (Marcelo), the
owner of T.P. Marcelo Realty Corporation. To settle its debt after
failing to pay its obligation, F.G.R. Sales assigned to Marcelo all its
rights over several parcels of land in the Subdivision, as well as
receivables from the lots already sold.7
As the successor-in-interest of the original developer, Marcelo
represented to subdivision lot buyers, the National Housing
Authority (NHA) and the Human Settlement Regulatory
Commission (HSRC) that a water facility was available in the
Subdivision.8
For almost 30 years, the residents of the Subdivision relied on
this facility as their only source of water.9 This fact was
acknowledged by Marcelo and Hermogenes Liwag (Hermogenes),

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

petitioner’s late husband who was then the president of respondent

Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association (Association).10
Sometime in September 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block No. 5
to Hermogenes. As a result, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
C-350099 was issued to him. When Hermogenes died in 2003,
petitioner Emeteria P. Liwag subsequently wrote a letter to
respondent Association, demanding the re-

_______________
6  HLURB Arbiter’s Decision dated 5 October 2004, penned by Atty. Joselito F.
Melchor; Rollo, pp. 86-93.
7  CA Decision dated 13 March 2009, Rollo, pp. 39-40.
8  Id., at p. 40.
9  HLURB Arbiter’s Decision dated 5 October 2004, Rollo, p. 87.
10 Id.

748

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

moval of the overhead water tank from the subject parcel of land.11
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 (the owner and developer of
the Subdivision), 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 in favor of Hermogenes in a Decision dated 5 October
2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:12

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Confirming the existence of an easement for water system/facility or open
space on Lot 11, Block 5 of TCT No. C-350099 wherein the deep well and
overhead tank are situated,
2. Making the Temporary Restraining Order dated 01 April 2004 permanent so
as to allow the continuous use and maintenance of the said water facility, i.e.,
deep well and over head water tank, on the subject lot, by the complainant’s
members and residents of the subject project, and restraining all the
respondents from committing the acts complained of and as described in the
complaint,
3. Declaring as void ab initio the deed of sale dated 26 February 2001,
involving Lot 11, Block 5 in favor of spouses Liwag, and TCT No. C-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

350099 in the name of same respondents without prejudice to complainant’s

right to institute a criminal action in coordination with the prose-

_______________
11 CA Decision dated 13 March 2009, Rollo, p. 40.
12 HLURB Arbiter’s Decision dated 5 October 2004, Rollo, p. 93.

749

VOL. 675, JULY 4, 2012 749

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

cuting arms of the government against respondents Marcelo and

Liwag, and furthermore, with recourse by Liwag against T.P. and/or
Marcelo to ask for replacement for controverted lot with a new one
within the subject project, and
4. Ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay complainant the amount
of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the amount of P20,000.00 as damages
in favor of the complainant’s members.
SO ORDERED.”

On appeal before the HLURB Board of Commissioners, the

Board found that Lot 11, Block 5 was not an open space. Moreover,
it ruled that Marcelo had complied with the requirements of
Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1216 with the donation of 9,047
square meters of open space and road lots. It further stated that there
was no proof that Marcelo or the original subdivision owner or
developer had at any time represented that Lot 11, Block 5 was an
open space. It therefore concluded that the use of the lot as site of
the water tank was merely tolerated.13
Respondent Association interposed an appeal to the OP, which
set aside the Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners and
affirmed that of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter.14
The OP ruled that Lot 11, Block 5 was an open space, because it
was the site of the water installation of the Subdivision, per
Marcelo’s official representation on file with the HLURB National
Capital Region Field Office. The OP further ruled that the open
space required under P.D. 957 excluded road lots; and, thus, the
Subdivision’s open space was still short of that required by law.
Finally, it ruled that petitioner Liwag was aware of the
representations made by Marcelo and

_______________
13 Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners dated 7 June 2005, Rollo, p.
122.
14 Decision of the OP dated 5 March 2007, Rollo, p. 134.

750

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
8/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 675

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc.

his predecessors-in-interest, because he had acknowledged the

existence of a water installation system as per his Affidavit of 10
August 1982.15
Petitioner Liwag unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration,16
then filed a Rule 43 Petition for Review before the CA.17

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cb7ddbf3d3eaa98c8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6