Manila v. Entote
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Juan Entote owned Lot 3, which was subject to an easement of right-of-way annotated on its title. This easement was originally constituted in favor of Lots 1 and 2 of Plan Pcs-2672, owned by Petrona Vera Vda. de Marzan, and included "any and all other persons whomsoever." When Marzan sold a portion of Lot 2 to Fernando Vinzons, the vendor and vendee executed an agreement waiving their right-of-way easement over Lot 3, as the sold portion was to be consolidated with Vinzons' other lot, providing access to Lorenzo Chacon Street. Subsequently, Entote acquired the remaining portion of Lot 2. Entote applied for a building permit for his property, and the City Engineer required, as a condition, that Lot 3 be converted into an approved private alley subject to nine conditions, including public use and allowing the City to lay pipes. Entote acceded, and these conditions were annotated on his title. Later, Entote sought to construct a fence on Lot 3 but was denied a permit, with the City asserting Lot 3 was an approved private alley open to the public. Entote then filed an action to compel the City to release the lot from this easement. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance dismissed Entote's complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's decision, declaring the alley a private alley with limited use, modifying the conditions, ordering annotation on the title, and directing intervenors Fernando Vinzons and Dominga Vinzons-Cu to close openings to their houses abutting the alley. The case reached the Supreme Court on petition for review by the City of Manila, its officials, and the intervenors. The Petition: Petitioners (City of Manila, Mayor, City Engineer, Vinzons, and Vinzons-Cu) sought to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that the alley should remain open to the public based on the original easement annotation and Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila. Respondent Entote sought to uphold the Court of Appeals' ruling, limiting the use of the alley.
Issue(s)
Whether the easement of right-of-way over Lot 3, originally annotated to include "any and all other persons whomsoever," extends to the general public, notwithstanding the waiver executed by a subsequent owner of a dominant estate. Whether a statement in a prior court decision regarding the public's use of the alley, which was not part of the dispositive portion, constitutes res judicata or is merely obiter dictum. Whether Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila mandates that a private alley opened as a condition for a building permit must remain open to the general public indefinitely. Whether Juan Entote's consent to the conditions imposed by the City Engineer was vitiated by mistake, rendering the agreement invalid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the alley is a private alley with limited use, not open to the general public. The intervenors were ordered to close openings to their houses abutting the alley.
Ratio Decidendi
On the scope of the easement and the effect of the waiver: The Court held that the phrase "any and all other persons whomsoever" in the easement annotation must be construed in its limited sense, applying the rule of ejusdem generis. This means the general words are restricted to persons of the same class as those specifically enumerated (owners of Lots 1 and 2, their heirs, assigns, and servants). Therefore, the easement was not intended for the indiscriminate public. Furthermore, the written agreement between the vendor (Marzan) and vendee (Fernando Vinzons) expressly waived the right-of-way easement over Lot 3. This renunciation was valid and binding upon Vinzons and those deriving rights from him, including intervenor Dominga Vinzons-Cu. The Court reiterated that a voluntary easement can be extinguished by renunciation by the owner of the dominant estate. On the effect of the prior court decision: The Court disagreed with the intervenors' claim that a statement in a prior case (Civil Case 33076) regarding the public's use of the alley constituted res judicata. The Court found that the dispositive portion of that decision ordered the removal of a fence and dismissed the counterclaim for easement, but it did not definitively rule on the public's right to use the alley. The statement in the trial court's opinion that the defendant, "in common with others, may use or pass along the alley which is intended for the public" was an obiter dictum because the public's right to use the alley was not an issue in that case. The Court emphasized that judgments are contained in the dispositive portion, and incidental remarks in the opinion lack the force of adjudication. On the applicability of Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila: While acknowledging the wisdom of Section 103, which requires private streets or alleys opened for building permits to be open to the public, the Court held it could not be used to justify the retention of Lot 3 as a private alley open to the general public in this instance. The Court reiterated its ruling in Li Yao vs. de Leon, stating that an alley opened as a condition for a building permit is intended primarily for the benefit of the building for which the permit was granted, not for the general public. In this case, the alley was required for Entote's building, which did not abut a public street. The intervenors already had access to Lorenzo Chacon Street, and the closure of Lot 3 would not prejudice them. The Court interpreted "open to the general public" in Section 103 to mean only those dealing with the owner, residents of the buildings for which the alley was opened, and officials with duties related to public welfare, excluding the indiscriminate public. On mistake vitiating consent: The Court found that Entote's consent to the nine conditions imposed by the City Engineer was vitiated by mistake. Entote genuinely believed that the City could legally impose these conditions, a misunderstanding of the law regarding private alleys. Citing Article 1330 of the Civil Code, the Court stated that mistake upon conditions that moved the parties to enter into an agreement invalidates consent, making the agreement not binding. Therefore, Entote was entitled to relief from the adverse effects of his good-faith mistake.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary easement of right-of-way can be extinguished by the express renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate. The phrase "any and all other persons whomsoever" in an easement annotation, when following specific enumerations, is subject to the rule of ejusdem generis and should be construed in a limited sense, excluding the indiscriminate public. Statements in a court's opinion that are not part of the dispositive portion are considered obiter dictum and do not have the force of res judicata.