Li Yao v De Leon PROPERTIES INVOLVED:
Description of Lot 3, Block No. 2130 in Manila  WON De Leon is a party to the undertaking executed by Cu
The “ALLEY ONG”  It is slightly trapezoidal in form and bounded by:
case  SOUTH: bounded by Raon Street and Lot 5
 EAST: bounded by 2 lots
Owners of the  NORTH: bounded by Lot 4B (Lot 4B belongs to De
adjoining lot where Leons)
the private alley Description of Lot 4B owned by De Leons
was located cannot  EAST: bounded by Lot 19, 21, 23, and part of 25
oppose to its
closure as they are RECIT READY!
not the intended A lease agreement was entered into between Cu Unjieng and
beneficiary of it. Smith Bell. Later on, Smith Bell applied for construction
permit at the City Engineer of Manila. However, such permit
was not granted UNLESS a 2-meter private alley will be
opened by the owner of the building as mandated by Section
103 of the Revised City Ordinance. In compliance with the
demand, Cu Unjieng, being the owner of the lot, made an
Undertaking granting the opening of a private alley. Later on,
when the lease agreement with Smith Bell has terminated
and the building constructed therein was burned, Li Yao,
new owner of the Lot 3, demanded for the closure of the
private alley. This was opposed by De Leons who are the
owners of the adjoining land where the private alley is
located. The SC Ruled that De Leons have no legal interest to
oppose the closure of the alley as they are not a party to the
Undertaking executed by Cu Unjieng in opening the private
alley. Any benefits that they may derive from the use of
private alley is purely incidental. Thus, their consent is not
needed before the private alley be closed.
HOW THE CASE STARTED
 Lots 3, 4B, 6B, 19, 21, 23, and 25 used to belong to
Mariano Cu Unjieng and Cu Unjieng e Hijos.
 Now, in 1930, Cu Unjieng LEASED Lot 3 to Smith
Bell (which is now owned by Li Yao)
 Smith Bell informed Cu Unjieng that they need to
apply for construction permit for the improvements
that they will introduced on the leased property.
 However, considering the location of the leased
property, as it did not abut on Raon Street, the City
ISSUE
Unjieng in granting the opening of private alley in favor of
Smith Bell.
NO. DE LEON IS NOT A PARTY TO THE UNDERTAKING AND HAS
NO LEGAL INTEREST THEREIN. THUS, WHEN CU UNJIENG AND
CITY OF MANILA AGREED ON THE CLOSURE OF THE PRIVATE
ALLEY, THERE WAS INDEED A “UNANIMITY AMONG THE
PARTIES”
 It must be emphasized that the opening of private alley was
granted by Cu Unjieng for it was a condition precedent
before the City Engineer would issue a construction permit
in favor of its tenant, Smith Bell.
 Clearly, the opening of private alley was made for the
benefit of Smith Bell, the occupants of Lot 3 and NOT for the
occupants of Lot 4B and 6B which are owned by the De
Leons
 Whatever benefits that the occupants of Lot 4B and 6B may
derive from the private alley was PURELY INCIDENTAL to
those established in the interests of occupants of Lot 3
 Thus, being not a party to the undertaking, De Leons have
no right to object to the closure of private alley
 Moreover, since Cu Unjieng and City of Manila have agreed
for the closure of the private alley, the required unanimity
of parties was met.
DOCTRINE:
 Where the annotation on the title of registered land, that
the owner should open and maintain a private alley
thereon, was made at the instance of the City Engineer of
Manila and said official is agreeable to its cancellation, the
owners of the adjoining lot cannot oppose the cancellation
of the annotation. They have no legal interest in said
annotation.
 Engineer of Manila demanded that a private alley of 2
meters in width be opened on eastern portion of Lot
3 pursuant to Section 103 of the Revised City
Ordinance; to wit:
“ Provided, That the building shall abut or face upon a
public street or alley or on a private street or alley
which has been officially approved; and Provided
further, That any private street or alley opened in an
interior lot for the purposes of this section, once
officially approved. shall be open to the general
public, and with its approved width preserved, shall
be maintained and kept in good repair by the grantee
of the permit, his heirs, executors, and assigns, and
shall never be closed by any person so long as there
is a building or other structure abutting or facing
upon such private street or alley."

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEMAND OF THE CITY

ENGINEER, CU UNJIENG EXECUTED A PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT UNDERTAKING TO OPEN AND MAINTAIN A
PRIVATE ALLEY of 2 METERS SO THAT CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT BE GRANTED IN FAVOR OF SMITH BELL, the
tenant of Lot 3
 Such public instrument was registered in the office of
Register of Deeds of Manila and was annotated on
the title of the property
 The 2 meter private alley shall be considered as an
encumbrance on Lot 3

NOW, THE DISPUTE STARTED WHEN LI YAO (NOW THE

OWNER OF LOT 3) SOUGHT FOR THE CANCELLATION OF
THE ENCUMBRANCE ANNOTATED ON ITS TITLE
INVOLVING THE 2- METER PRIVATE ALLEY
 Li Yao argued on its Petition for Cancellation of
Encumbrance that the legal necessity for the private
alley has ceased and terminated since the building
therein no longer exist as it was burned during the
liberation
ON THE OTHER HAND, DE LEONS ARE OPPOSING TO
SUCH CANCELLATION ON THE GROUND THAT:
 The occupants of Lot 4B, which is owned by De Leons
will have no access to Raon Street, except through
the 2-meter private alley
 There is lack of “unanimity among the parties” in
closing the private alley. De Leons argued that they
were not consulted on the intended closure of the
private alley
 If the alley will be closed, it would make their
building a veritable fire trap
 The existence and continuance of the private alley is
INDISPENSABLE to the safety of the employees and
patrons of the Dalisay Theater
 Li Yao, through its tenants, had placed obstructions
along the private alley so De Leons are demanding
for cleaning and clearing of the said private alley
(Lakas!)

CFI OF MANILA: Granted the cancellation of encumbrance;

thus, ordered for the closure of private alley