G.R. No.

189755               July 4, 2012

EMETERIA LIWAG, Petitioner,
vs.
HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.

FACTS: In 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-350099was issued to the latter. In2003, 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 where in the deep well and overhead tank 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: Whether or not Lot 11, Block 5 of the Happy Glen Loop is considered an “open space” as defined
in PD No. 1216.

HELD: 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.
G.R. No. L-47757-61 January 28, 1980

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ABUNDIO R. ELLO, As 4th Assistant of Provincial Bohol
VICENTE DE LA SERNA. JR., as complainant all private prosecutor, petitioners,
vs.
HON. VICENTE B. ECHAVES, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bohol Branch II, ANO
DACULLO, GERONIMO OROYAN, MARIO APARICI, RUPERTO CAJES and MODESTO S
SUELLO, respondents.

FACTS: Petitioners filed with the lower court a separate information against sixteen persons charging them with
squatting as penalized by PD No. 772 against the respondent. Before the accused could be arraigned, Judge
Echavez motu proprio issued an omnibus order dismissing the information on the grounds (1) that it was alleged
that the accused entered the land through "stealth and strategy", whereas under the decree the entry should be
effected "with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the
landowner", and (2) that under the rule of ejusdem generis the decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing
land.

ISSUE: Whether or not PD 772 applies to agricultural lands.

HELD: SC hold that the lower court correctly ruled that the PD 772 does not apply to pasture lands because its
preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to illegal
constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. The squatting complained of involves pasture lands
in rural areas.

It should be noted that squatting on public agricultural lands, like the grazing lands involved in this case, is
punished by Republic Act No. 947 which makes it unlawful for any person, corporation or association to forcibly
enter or occupy public agricultural lands.

The rule of ejusdem generis (of the same kind or species) invoked by the trial court does not apply to this
case. Here, the intent of the decree is unmistakable. It is intended to apply only to urban communities, particularly to
illegal constructions. The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory construction which is resorted to when
the legislative intent is uncertain (Genato Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S.
1049-50).