Scribd
Upload
822 views1 page

City of Manila v. Entote (Ejusdem Generis)

This case involves an easement over Lot 3 for a right-of-way. The easement language granted access to owners of Lots 1 and 2 "and any and all other persons whomsoever". The issue is whether this includes access for the public. The Court held that under the legal rule of ejusdem generis, the general words must be construed as being of the same nature as the specific words listed. Therefore, the general words referred only to those privy to the owners of Lots 1 and 2, not the general public, and the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

AronJames
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
822 views1 page

City of Manila v. Entote (Ejusdem Generis)

This case involves an easement over Lot 3 for a right-of-way. The easement language granted access to owners of Lots 1 and 2 "and any and all other persons whomsoever". The issue is whether this includes access for the public. The Court held that under the legal rule of ejusdem generis, the general words must be construed as being of the same nature as the specific words listed. Therefore, the general words referred only to those privy to the owners of Lots 1 and 2, not the general public, and the petition was denied.

Uploaded by

AronJames
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE DIGEST 7 – CITY OF MANILA V.

ENTOTE

FACTS:

1. This litigation involves an easement of a right-of-way over Lot 3, Pcs-2672, covered by T.C.T.
45531 issued in the name of Juan Entote who instituted the present petition against the City of
Manila to compel the City and its officials to release the lot from said easement by virtue of
which it was made open to the public in general as an approved private alley.

2. When Entote first acquired the subject lot, it was already subject to an easement of a right-or-
way which reads as follows:

“EASEMENT OF A RIGHT OF WAY — Affecting Lot 3 of plan Pcs-2672 described herein, for ingress, egress
and regress in favor of the owners of Lot 1 and 2 of plan Pcs-2672, respectively, their heirs and assigns, their
servants and any and all other persons whomsoever, for their respective use, benefits or advantage, with
right at all times to pass and repass over said property.”

3. After trial, the CFI rendered judgment dismissing Juan Entote’s complaint. Juan Entote appealed
to the CA and a decision was rendered which set aside the trial court’s decision. Hence, the
present petition.

4. During the pendency of the case, Fernando Vinzons and his sister Dominga Vinzons-Cu intervened
in the proceedings. They asserted that CA erred in denying them the enjoyment of the easement
since they are embraced in the phrase “any and all other persons whomsoever, for their
respective use” found in the entry of the easement and that the said phrase indicated that the
easement was intended not only for the benefit of the immovable Lot 2 and its owners, but of the
community and the public at large.

ISSUE: Whether or not the phrase “any and all other persons” (general words) include the public in the
enjoyment of the right of way easement.

HELD: NO. Petition is DENIED.

In the case at bar general words follow an enumeration of particular classes of persons which are
analogous in the sense that they have one common denominator — privity with the owners of lots 1 and
2 plan Pcs-2672. Hence, the generic terms used in the easement should be construed in a limited sense
as to exclude the indiscriminate public from the enjoyment of the right of way easement constituted on
the alley and limit the same to those who are privy to the owners of the dominant estates, lots 1 and 2
plan Pcs-2672.

RATIO: Under the rule of construction known as ‘ejusdem generis’, where general words follow the
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 rule is based on
the obvious reason that if the legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted
sense they would have made no mention of the particular classes. Under the maxim of "ejusdem generis"
which means "of the same kind, class or nature", when general words follow an enumeration of particular
cases, such words apply only to cases of the same kind as those expressly mentioned.

You might also like