7/29/2019 Liwag and Valeroso

1/3

G.R. No. 189755 July 4, 2012

EMETERIA LIWAG,Petitioner,vs.HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,Respondent.SERENO,J.:FACTS:

The point of controversy revolved on the water facility in Happy Glen Loop

HOA, Inc,.

Marcelo , successor-in-interest of the original developer sold Lot 11, Block

No. 5 (where a deep well and overhead tank is situated for over 30 years)to Hermogenes Liwag (husband of Petitioner)

Petitioner Emeteria demanded the HOA to remove the overhead water

tanks from the subject parcel of land.

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.

The case reached up to the level of CA; however, the petitioner being not

satisfied and felt aggrieved, filed the herein Petition for review.

ISSUES:1) Does HLRUB has jurisdiction over the petitioners demand?2) WON an easement for water facility exists on Lot 11, Block 5 of Happy

Glen Loop Subdivision?3) Is the sale of the subject parcel of land valid?

RULING:

The Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court.1) Yes. HLURB has jurisdiction over the petitioners demand. (Basis: P.D. 957)2) The easement for water facility on Lot 11, Block 5 exists. For more than

30 years, the facility was continuously used as the residents sole sourceof water. Thus, it is continuous and apparent and was acquired throughprescription. It is also considered as open space based on the definitionstipulated in P.D. 1216.

3) No. the sale of subject parcel of land is not valid. The law expresslyprovides that open spaces in subdivisions are reserved for public use andare beyond the commerce of man. As such, these open spaces are notsusceptible of private ownership and appropriation.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review isDENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court ofAppeals in CA-GR SP No. 100454 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Doctrine: EJUSDEM GENERIS states that where a general word or phrasefollows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class, thegeneral 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 specificallymentioned.

PD 1216 makes no specific mention of areas reserved for water facilities. Thecourt resorts to statutory construction to determine whether these areas fall

under "other similar facilities and amenities." Applying this principle to the afore-quoted Section 1 of P.D. 1216, the court finds that the enumeration refers to

7/29/2019 Liwag and Valeroso

2/3

areas reserved for the common welfare of the community. Thus, the phrase"other similar facilities and amenities" should be interpreted in like manner.Further, the location of the water facility in the Subdivision must form part of thearea reserved for open space.

VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR 164815 February 22,2008

PSINSP JERRY C VALEROSO, Petitionervs.The People of the Philippines, respondents

FACTS:On July 10, 1996, petitioner in a case was arrested for kidnapping with ransom.During the arrest, the police officers informed him of his constitutional rights,and bodily searched him. Found tucked in his waist was a Charter Arms, bearingSerial Number 52315 with five (5) live ammunition.

A verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division atCamp Crame revealed that it was not issued to the petitioner but to another

person. Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm andammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended.

On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, Quezon City,convicted Valeroso as charged and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminatepenalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6)years, as maximum.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but the minimum term ofthe indeterminate penalty was lowered to four (4) years and two (2) months.On petition for review, we affirmed in full the CA decision. The Motion for

Reconsideration of Valeroso was denied with finality on June 30, 2008.Valeroso is again before us through this Letter-Appeal imploring this Court toonce more take a contemplative reflection and deliberation on the case, focusingon his breached constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.ISSUE:

(1)Is the search and seizure conducted by Police Officers constitutional?

(2) Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken intoaccount that the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996wherein the governing law was PD 1866 which provides the penalty of

reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

HELD:(1) No. Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valerosos right

against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the evidenceobtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.

(2) YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency ofthe case with the trial court. The law looks forward, never backward(prospectivity). Valeroso is not a habitual criminal.

Doctrine:

Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective, notretroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who

7/29/2019 Liwag and Valeroso

3/3

is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.(Exceptionand exception to the exception on effectivity of laws).