Case Digest (G.R. No. 78447)
Facts:
Restituto Calma v. The Hon. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) and Pleasantville Development Corporation, G.R. No. 78447, August 17, 1989, the Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Restituto Calma and his wife purchased a lot in Pleasantville Development Corporation’s subdivision (City Heights Phase II) in Bacolod City in August 1975 and built a residence in 1976. Sometime in 1979–1980 the spouses Fabian and Nenita Ong purchased the lot fronting the Calmas’ lot and erected structures used for residence and business; petitioner complained in April and June 1981 to the homeowners’ association (ARCHI) and to Pleasantville about alleged nuisance arising from lumbering and related activities at the Ong property.
On 28 July 1981 the Calmas filed a civil complaint for damages (Civil Case No. 16113) in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the Ongs and Pleasantville alleging, inter alia, that Pleasantville’s sale of the lot to the Ongs and its failure to cause demolition of alleged illegal constructions made the nuisance possible. On 31 August 1981 petitioner also filed an administrative complaint with the National Housing Authority (later taken over by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, hereinafter the COMMISSION) alleging violations of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree, P.D. No. 957, and seeking abatement, refunds, penalties and revocation of license.
After pleadings and position papers, the COMMISSION rendered its decision in HSRC No. REM-92181-0547 on 22 May 1985 dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit insofar as violations of Sections of P.D. No. 957 were concerned, but ordering Pleasantville “to take appropriate measures for the prevention and abatement of the activities/nuisance complained of” and to submit a compliance timetable and periodic reports. On 27 August 1986 the COMMISSION issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce that decision.
Aggrieved, Pleasantville filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court challenging the COMMISSION’s abatement directive and the writ of execution; the Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP. No. 10684). The Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) rendered judgment dated 26 February 1987 holding that the COMMISSION acted capriciously and in excess of jurisdiction by imposing an obligation to abate a nuisance without evidence that a nuisance existed and by doing so without giving the Ongs, who would be directly affected, an opportunity to be heard; it set aside the COMMISSION’s order granting the writ of execution and nullified the portion of the COMMISSION decision ordering abatement and submission of timetables and repo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly nullify the COMMISSION’s order granting a writ of execution and the portion of the COMMISSION’s decision ordering Pleasantville to prevent and abate the alleged nuisance on grounds of excess of jurisdiction and lack of evidence?
- Did the COMMISSION violate due process by declaring or ordering abatement of a nuisance without giving the directly affected parties (the Ongs) an opportunity to be heard?
- Was petitioner entitled to enforcement of an implied warranty (that subdivision lots shall be used exclusively for residential purposes) against Pleasantville based on the printed Contract to Sell and/or by operatio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)