Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed that Lot 11, Block 5, as the site of the subdivision's water facility, is part of the required "open space" under Presidential Decree No. 957 and reserved for public use. The sale of the lot was void, and an easement for the water facility existed for the benefit of the community.

Background

In 1978, F.G.R. Sales, the original subdivision developer, assigned rights to Ernesto Marcelo due to financial obligations. Marcelo assured government agencies that water facilities were available in the subdivision. The water facility on Lot 11, Block 5 became the sole water source for residents for over 30 years. In 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block 5 to Hermogenes Liwag. After his death, Emeteria Liwag demanded the removal of the water tank, prompting the homeowners' association to file a case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

Facts

• 1. The water tank and deep well on Lot 11, Block 5 served as the subdivision’s primary water source since its development.
• 2. Hermogenes Liwag purchased the lot despite its use as a water facility.
• 3. The homeowners’ association claimed that the lot was reserved for public use as an open space under P.D. 957 and objected to Liwag’s demand to dismantle the water tank.
• 4. The HLURB, Office of the President, and the CA all ruled that the lot formed part of the subdivision's open space based on Marcelo’s representations and its public utility purpose.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Lot 11, Block 5 was lawfully purchased and titled under their name.
• 2. The existence of the water tank was merely tolerated and not a legal restriction on ownership.
• 3. The case constituted a prohibited collateral attack on a Torrens title, which is indefeasible.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Lot 11, Block 5 was part of the subdivision’s reserved open spaces under P.D. 957 and could not be sold or privately owned.
• 2. The water facility was essential for the subdivision and had been continuously used for over 30 years.
• 3. The sale of the lot violated statutory and contractual obligations.

Issues

• 1. Does the HLURB have jurisdiction over the case?
• 2. Is Lot 11, Block 5 part of the subdivision's required open spaces under P.D. 957?
• 3. Was the sale of Lot 11, Block 5 valid under the provisions of the law?

Ruling

• 1. Jurisdiction: The HLURB had jurisdiction under P.D. 1344, which empowers it to resolve disputes concerning open spaces and subdivision obligations.
• 2. Open Space Classification: Lot 11 was deemed part of "open spaces" under P.D. 1216 and P.D. 957 due to its use as a water facility benefiting the community.
• 3. Invalid Sale: The sale of Lot 11, Block 5 violated the prohibition against the sale of open spaces for public use and was void ab initio.

Doctrines

• 1. P.D. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree): Mandates developers to reserve open spaces for public use.
• 2. Principle of Ejusdem Generis: Open spaces include facilities for the community's welfare, like water facilities.
• 3. Civil Code Provisions on Easements (Arts. 613-615): Confirmed the existence of a continuous and apparent easement for the water facility.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Water is a basic need in human settlements... without which the community would not survive."
• 2. "Open spaces in subdivisions are reserved for public use and are beyond the commerce of man."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Arranza v. B.F. Homes (2000): HLURB's jurisdiction over subdivision-related disputes.
• 2. Aqualab Philippines, Inc. v. Heirs of Pagobo (2009): Exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens titles.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. P.D. 957: Requires open spaces in subdivisions.
• 2. P.D. 1216: Defines open spaces.
• 3. Art. 615, Civil Code: Classification of easements.