LIWAG V. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

G.R. NO. L-5060 DATE: July 4, 2012

PONENTE: NATURE:
FACTS:
I n 1978, F. G. R. Sales, the original developer of Happy Glen Loop, loaned from Ernesto Marcelo,
owner of T. P. Marcelo Realty Corporation. The former failed to settle its debts with the latter, so, he
assigned all his rights to Marcelo over several parcels of land in the Subdivision including the
receivables from the lots already sold. As the successor-in-interest, Marcelo represented to lot buyers,
the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC)
that a water facility is available in the subdivision. The said water facility has been the only source of
water of the residents for thirty (30) years. In September 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block 5 to
Hermogenes Liwag. As a result, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. C-350099 was issued to the
latter. In 2003, Hermogenes died. Petitioner, wife of Hermogenes, subsequently wrote to the respondent
Association demanding the removal of the over headwater tank over the parcel of land. The latter
refused and filed a case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board against T. P.
Marcelo Realty Corporation, petitioner and the surviving heirs of Hermogenes. The HLURB ruling
was in favor of the respondent Association. One of the things it affirmed was 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 overheadtank are situated. However, on appeal before the
HLURB Board of Commissioners, the Board found that Lot 11, Block 5 was not an open space.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Lot 11, Block 5 of the Happy Glen Loop is considered an “open space” as defined in P.
D. 1216.
DOCTRINES | HELD:

RULING:
Yes, the aforementioned parcel of land is considered an “open space.” The Court used the basic
statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis to determine whether the area falls under
“other similar facilities and amenities” since P. D. 1216 makes no specific mention of areas reserved for
water facilities.

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 that principle, the Court found out that the enumeration refers to areas reserved for the
common welfare of the community. Therefore, the phrase “other similar facilities and amenities”
should be interpreted in like manner. It is without a doubt that the facility was used for the benefit of the
community. Water is a basic necessity, without which, survival in the community would be impossible.

NOTES:
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 that principle, the Court found out that the enumeration refers to areas reserved for the
common welfare of the community. Therefore, the phrase “other similar facilities and amenities”

1
should be interpreted in like manner. It is without a doubt that the facility was used for the benefit of the
community. Water is a basic necessity, without which, survival in the community would be impossible.