Case Digest (G.R. No. 83358)
Facts:
Cariday Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83358, August 02, 1989, the Supreme Court En Banc, Grino‑Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
The private respondent, Forbes Park Association, Inc. (FPA), is a non‑stock corporation organized to promote and safeguard the interests of residents and lot owners of Forbes Park; membership and adherence to the Association’s rules and the Deed of Restrictions are automatic and annotated on certificates of title. Cariday Investment Corporation (Cariday) owned a residential building in Forbes Park and was therefore a member of FPA. Cariday’s title, TCT No. S‑91329, carried a Deed of Restrictions stating, among other provisions, that “Lots may be only used for residential purposes and not more than one single family residential building will be constructed thereon,” and FPA’s rules (Art. VI, Sec. 1(b)–(c)) elaborated: one residential building per lot; lots for residential use only; and the use and occupancy of houses shall be exclusively for residence, not for commercial purposes. The rules also authorized measures, after notice, including disconnection of the water service supplied by the Association, for violations.
In mid‑1986 and again in 1987 FPA’s retained engineer inspected Cariday’s building and reported alterations and features indicating the interior was designed for multiple‑family occupancy, even if the exterior resembled a single‑family house. Cariday admitted the interior allowed occupancy by two families. FPA demanded structural corrections. Without complying, Cariday leased one portion to a private individual in July 1987 and another portion to Procter & Gamble for an executive in August 1987; the latter tenant was prevented on arrival by Association security in September 1987 after FPA refused clearance on grounds that leasing to more than one tenant would violate the single‑family restriction, and FPA threatened disconnection of water.
Cariday sued FPA in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Civil Case No. 17933 (filed September 28, 1987), seeking injunctive relief and damages and asking, pending trial, for a preliminary injunction to prevent FPA from cutting off water service and from blocking tenants’ ingress and egress. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on October 21, 1987 upon Cariday’s posting of a P50,000 bond. FPA moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied, then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 13965) alleging grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s issuance of the injunction.
The Court of Appeals annulled the writ of preliminary injunction, holding that the Deed of Restrictions and FPA rules limited both construction and use, so that the Association properly refused entry to additional tenants and could enforce the rules (including threatened water ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling the RTC’s writ of preliminary injunction issued to Cariday?
- Should the covenant “not more than one single‑family residential building will be constructed thereon” be interpreted to restrict post‑construction occupancy to a single family (i.e., prohibit leasing to two ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)