City of Manila vs. Entote

The Court held that a private alley opened and maintained as a condition precedent for the issuance of a building permit under Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila is intended solely for the benefit of the occupants of the building for which it was required and those dealing with the owner, excluding the indiscriminate public; consequently, an agreement imposing perpetual public access upon the lot owner, entered into under the mistaken belief that the City could legally impose such a condition, is not binding and may be cancelled.

Juan Entote owned Lot 3 (Pcs-2672) in Manila, which was subject to an easement of right-of-way annotated on its certificate of title benefiting the owners of adjacent Lots 1 and 2. Fernando Vinzons purchased a portion of Lot 2 and, in the deed of sale, expressly waived and renounced the right-of-way easement over Lot 3 because his consolidated property gained access to Lorenzo Chacon Street. When Entote applied for a building permit for construction on his interior lots, the City Engineer required, as a condition, that Lot 3 be converted into an approved private alley subject to nine conditions, including that the alley remain open to the public. Entote accepted these conditions under protest, and they were annotated on his title. Subsequently, Entote attempted to restrict access by constructing a fence, but the City denied his permit applications, leading him to file suit to release the lot from the easement.

• Juan Entote is the registered owner of Lot 3 (Pcs-2672, T.C.T. 45531) and four other contiguous lots abutting Padre Herrera Street.
• Lot 3 was subject to an easement of right-of-way annotated on T.C.T. 45531: "for ingress, egress and regress in favor of the owners of Lots 1 and 2 of plan Pcs-2672, respectively, their heirs and assigns, their servants and any and all other persons whomsoever..."
• Fernando Vinzons purchased a 35.87-square-meter portion of Lot 2 from Petrona Vera Vda. de Marzan; the deed of sale contained a written waiver wherein the parties "waive, quitclaim and renounce their right-of-way easement to the adjoining lot known as Lot 3" because the purchased portion was consolidated with another lot, giving access to Lorenzo Chacon Street.
• On March 12, 1957, Entote applied to the City Engineer for a permit to construct a two-storey building; the City Engineer required Lot 3 be converted into an approved private alley subject to nine conditions, including that the alley "shall remain open at all times" and that Entote "will allow the public to use the same."
• Entote accepted the conditions, which were annotated on T.C.T. 45531.
• In 1959, Entote applied for a permit to construct an adobe stone fence and guardhouse at the dead end of Lot 3 due to thefts; the application was denied on the ground that Lot 3 was an approved private alley open to the public.
• Entote sent a letter to the City Mayor and City Engineer withdrawing Lot 3 as a private alley; the City denied the withdrawal.
• Entote filed Civil Case 46352 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• Intervenors Vinzons claimed entitlement to the easement under the annotation and under Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila.
• In prior Civil Case 33076, Entote sued Vinzons to remove a steel matting fence across Lot 3; the trial court dismissed Vinzons' counterclaim for easement but made a statement in the body of the decision that the alley was "intended for the public."

• The City of Manila, the Mayor, and the City Engineer: Maintained that Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila requires that any private alley officially approved "shall be open to the general public," and that this provision serves public health, sanitation, and safety pursuant to the City's police power. They argued that the alley must remain accessible to the indiscriminate public and that the City had authority to impose the nine conditions, including public access, as a valid regulatory measure.
• Intervenors (Fernando S. Vinzons and Dominga Vinzons-Cu): Argued that the easement annotation on Lot 3's title, specifically the phrase "any and all other persons whomsoever," demonstrated intent to benefit the general public, not just the dominant estate owners, and that the ejusdem generis rule should not apply to restrict its scope. They contended that the waiver of the easement by Fernando Vinzons was ineffective to extinguish the public's right under the annotation. They asserted that the prior decision in Civil Case 33076 constituted res judicata establishing the public's right to use the alley. They further argued that requiring them to close openings abutting the alley would cause considerable expense and that Entote was estopped from disavowing his voluntary undertaking to maintain the alley open to the public.

• Juan Entote: Argued that the easement was a voluntary easement that had been validly renounced by Fernando Vinzons through the written waiver in the deed of sale, thereby extinguishing any right of the intervenors under Article 631(5) of the Civil Code. He contended that under the ejusdem generis rule, the general words "any and all other persons whomsoever" in the easement annotation must be limited to those of the same class as the specifically enumerated beneficiaries (owners, heirs, assigns, servants), thus excluding the indiscriminate public. He maintained that the statement in Civil Case 33076 regarding public use was merely obiter dictum, as the issue there was limited to Vinzons' private easement claim, not public rights. He argued that Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances, as interpreted in Li Yao v. de Leon, did not require access by the general public but only by those dealing with the owner, residents, and public officials concerned with safety and health. He further contended that his agreement to the nine conditions was vitiated by mistake because he believed the City had the legal authority to compel public access, which it did not possess.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the statement in the prior decision in Civil Case 33076 regarding the alley being "intended for the public" constitutes res judicata or is merely obiter dictum.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the easement of right-of-way annotated on Lot 3 benefits the indiscriminate public or only those privy to the owners of the dominant estate (Lots 1 and 2).
  • Whether the waiver and renunciation of the easement by Fernando Vinzons is valid and binding upon Dominga Vinzons-Cu.
  • Whether Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, requiring private alleys to be "open to the general public," mandates access by the indiscriminate public or only by specific categories of persons (those dealing with the owner, residents, and public officers).
  • Whether the agreement between Entote and the City Engineer imposing public access conditions is binding upon Entote, or whether it is voidable due to mistake regarding the City's authority.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the statement in Civil Case 33076 regarding the alley being intended for the public was an obiter dictum because the right of the public to use the alley was never an issue in that case; the issue was limited to Vinzons' counterclaim for a private easement. The dismissal of Vinzons' counterclaim in the dispositive portion of the judgment in Civil Case 33076 constituted res judicata against him regarding his private easement claim, but the incidental remarks on public use lacked the force of adjudication and were not binding.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the general phrase "any and all other persons whomsoever" in the easement annotation applies only to persons of the same general class as those specifically enumerated (owners of Lots 1 and 2, their heirs, assigns, and servants), meaning those in privity with the dominant estate owners; thus, the indiscriminate public is excluded from the benefit of the easement.
  • The Court held that Fernando Vinzons expressly and formally renounced the easement in the deed of sale, and such renunciation is valid under Article 631(5) of the Civil Code, binding upon him and those claiming through him, including Dominga Vinzons-Cu.
  • The Court interpreted Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila in accordance with Li Yao v. de Leon, holding that a private alley opened as a condition for a building permit is intended only for the benefit of the building's occupants and those dealing with the owner, as well as public officers and employees concerned with safety, health, and welfare; the phrase "open to the general public" does not include the indiscriminate public where the alley serves no public thoroughfare function.
  • The Court found that Entote entered into the agreement under the mistaken belief that the City could validly impose the condition of public access; because mistake vitiates consent under Articles 1330 and 1331 of the Civil Code, the agreement is not binding.
  • The Court affirmed the order requiring intervenors to close all openings and apertures of their houses abutting the private alley.

• Ejusdem Generis — The doctrine provides that where general words follow an enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated. The Court applied this rule to construe the easement annotation, holding that "any and all other persons whomsoever" referred only to those in privity with the owners of the dominant estate, not the general public.
• Obiter Dictum — A remark or opinion expressed by a court incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before it or upon a point not involved in the determination of the cause, which lacks the force of an adjudication and is not res judicata. The Court applied this to the trial court's statement in Civil Case 33076 regarding public use of the alley.
• Res Judicata — The doctrine that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim or demand. The Court held that the dismissal of Vinzons' counterclaim in Civil Case 33076 was res judicata as to his private easement claim, but not as to public rights which were not litigated.
• Extinction of Voluntary Easement by Renunciation — Article 631(5) of the Civil Code provides that a voluntary easement is extinguished upon its renunciation by the owner of the dominant estate. The Court held that the written waiver executed by Fernando Vinzons constituted a valid renunciation extinguishing the easement.
• Mistake Vitiating Consent — Under Articles 1330 and 1331 of the Civil Code, mistake invalidates consent, especially where the mistake is made upon conditions which moved the parties to enter into the agreement. The Court held that Entote's mistaken belief that the City could legally compel perpetual public access vitiated his consent to the agreement.
• Interpretation of Statutes (Private Alley) — The Court distinguished between a public alley (dedicated to public use) and a private alley (not dedicated to public use, set apart for a particular purpose). Citing Li Yao, the Court held that a private alley created under Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila serves only the specific building for which it was required.

• "It is a rule of legal hermeneutics that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular or specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general class as those specifically mentioned." — The Court's statement of the ejusdem generis rule as applied to the easement annotation.
• "A remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not involved in the determination of the cause, is an obiter dictum and as such it lacks the force of an adjudication and is not to be regarded as such." — The Court's definition of obiter dictum regarding the prior case statement.
• "Consequently, such private street or alley as may have been opened and maintained as a condition for the authority to construct said building is intended only for its benefit." — The Court quoting and applying the holding in Li Yao v. de Leon to limit the scope of Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances.
• "Mistake vitiates consent... This is especially true where mistake is made upon conditions which have moved the parties to enter into the agreement... Therefore, it is obvious that where mistake invalidates consent, the agreement is not binding." — The Court's rationale for holding that Entote's agreement was not binding due to mistake regarding the City's authority.

• Li Yao v. de Leon, et al., G.R. No. L-14324, April 12, 1961 — Controlling precedent interpreting Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila; held that a private alley opened as a condition for construction is intended only for the benefit of the occupants of the building for which it was required.
• Aragon v. City Engineer Aquino, G.R. No. L-48451, October 30, 1942 — Cited by petitioners to justify public access; distinguished by the Court because in Aragon closure would have deprived "accessorias" of exit, whereas intervenors herein had independent access to Lorenzo Chacon Street.
• Ollada v. Court of Tax Appeals, 99 Phil. 604 — Applied for the proposition that the ejusdem generis rule limits general terms to the class of things specifically enumerated.
• Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-32717, November 26, 1970 — Applied for the proposition that the phrase "and the like" in a statute is limited to things of the same kind as those enumerated.
• Francisco Paez v. Jobson, 54 Phil. 239 — Cited for the validity of renunciation of easement by the owner of the dominant estate.
• Dayrit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-29388, December 28, 1970 — Cited for the rule that the judgment of a case is contained in the dispositive portion, and statements in the opinion are informal expressions.
• Morales v. Paredes, 55 Phil. 565 — Cited for the definition of obiter dictum.

• Article 613, Civil Code — Defines easement as an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.
• Article 619, Civil Code — Distinguishes legal easements (established by law) from voluntary easements (established by will of the parties).
• Article 631(5), Civil Code — Provides for the extinction of a voluntary easement upon its renunciation by the owner of the dominant estate.
• Article 1330, Civil Code — Provides that mistake vitiates consent.
• Article 1331, Civil Code — Provides that mistake upon conditions which have moved the parties to enter into the agreement invalidates consent.
• Section 103, Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila — Requires that buildings abut a public or approved private street or alley; provides that officially approved private alleys "shall be open to the general public" and maintained by the grantee.