Case Digest (G.R. No. 134284)
Facts:
Ayala Corporation, petitioner, v. Rosa‑Diana Realty and Development Corporation, respondent, G.R. No. 134284, December 01, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
In 1976 Ayala sold Lot 7, Block 1, Salcedo Village, Makati (TCT No. 233435) to spouses Manuel Sy and Sy Ka Kieng under a Deed of Sale containing Special Conditions of Sale and Deed Restrictions (including a building-start/completion schedule, prohibition on resale, a gross floor area limit and a 42‑meter height limit, the restrictions running until 2025). The original vendees failed to build as required.
In April 1989, with Ayala’s approval, the original vendees sold the lot to Rosa‑Diana, and on July 27, 1989 Rosa‑Diana executed an Undertaking promising to abide by the special conditions; Ayala thereupon released the title, enabling registration of TCT No. 165720 in Rosa‑Diana’s name with the special conditions and deed restrictions annotated. Rosa‑Diana submitted to Ayala building plans for a condominium, “The Peak,” consistent with the deed restrictions (about seven storeys, 24 meters, GFA ≈ 3,968.56 m2).
Rosa‑Diana, however, later submitted to the Makati building official a second set of building plans substantially exceeding the deed restrictions (reported as a 38‑storey, 91.65 m / 23,305.09 m2 plan) and proceeded to construct The Peak, which ultimately stood at 133.65 meters with a gross floor area much larger than allowed. Ayala sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Makati, Branch 139, for specific performance with injunctive relief and, alternatively, rescission. The RTC denied injunctive relief and, after trial, sustained Rosa‑Diana’s demurrer to evidence, finding Ayala had abandoned or was estopped from enforcing the restrictions because Ayala had previously approved the resale to Rosa‑Diana and had not uniformly enforced the restrictions against other lot owners.
Ayala appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC, relying in part on an earlier CA decision (C.A. G.R. S.P. No. 29157) that had characterized Ayala as estopped from enforcing the restrictions; the CA also cited C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 46488 (Ayala v. Ray Burton Dev. Corp.) as jurisprudential under stare decisis. Ayala sought relief in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), contending (inter alia) that the C...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly apply the doctrine of the law of the case or stare decisis to bar Ayala’s appeal?
- Was petitioner Ayala estopped or barred from enforcing the Deed Restrictions against respondent Rosa‑Diana?
- If Ayala may enforce the Deed Restrictions, what is the appropriate remedy given that specific performance or resc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)