Case Digest (G.R. No. 189755)
Facts:
Emeteria Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 189755, July 04, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Emeteria P. Liwag (widow of Hermogenes Liwag); respondent is Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute concerns Lot 11, Block 5 in Happy Glen Loop Subdivision, Deparo, Caloocan City, the site of the subdivision’s communal water facilities (deep well and overhead tank).The factual chain begins in 1978 when the original developer, F.G.R. Sales, obtained a loan from Ernesto Marcelo of T.P. Marcelo Realty Corporation and, failing to pay, assigned to Marcelo rights in several subdivision lots and receivables. Marcelo, as successor-in-interest, represented to lot buyers and to government housing agencies that a water facility served the subdivision, and for nearly 30 years residents relied on that facility as their sole source of water. Marcelo later sold Lot 11 to Hermogenes Liwag in September 1995; TCT No. C-350099 issued to Hermogenes. After Hermogenes’s death in 2003, petitioner Emeteria demanded removal of the overhead tank from that parcel.
Respondent Association filed a complaint with the HLURB seeking specific performance, confirmation/maintenance/donation of water facilities, annulment of the sale, and cancellation of TCT No. C-350099. HLURB Housing and Land Use Arbiter Joselito Melchor ruled for the Association in a 5 October 2004 Decision: he confirmed an easement for the water system on Lot 11, made a TRO permanent to allow continued communal use, voided the deed of sale of 26 February 2001 and TCT No. C-350099 as void ab initio, and ordered damages and attorney’s fees in favor of the complainants.
On appeal, the HLURB Board of Commissioners (7 June 2005) found Lot 11 was not open space, held Marcelo had donated sufficient open space under P.D. 1216, and determined the tank’s presence was tolerated rather than constituting an easement. The Association appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which on 5 March 2007 set aside the Board’s Decision and affirmed the Arbiter: OP concluded Lot 11 was open space because it housed the subdivision’s water installation per Marcelo’s representations, that road lots do not count toward open space under P.D. 957/P.D. 1216, and that petitioner was aware of the water installation (citing an affidavit signed in 1982). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the OP was denied (Order 26 July 2007).
Petitioner filed a Rule 43 petition to the Court of Appeals; the CA (Decision dated 13 March 2009) affirmed with modification: it held the HLURB had ju...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the HLURB have jurisdiction to hear and decide the Association’s complaint?
- Was there an easement (servitude) for a communal water facility over Lot 11, Block 5, acquired by prescription or otherwise?
- Did Lot 11 constitute part of the subdivision’s required open space under P.D. 1216 (and relatedly P.D. 957), making its sale void and beyond commerce?
- Can petitioner invoke indefeasibility of title or the prohibition on collateral attack to defeat the HLURB’s annulment ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)