Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56624)
Facts:
Darnoc Realty Development Corporation v. Ayala Corporation, G.R. No. 56624, September 30, 1982, the Supreme Court Second Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.The parties are Darnoc Realty Development Corporation (petitioner), owner of two parcels in Legaspi Village now covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. S-90337 and S-85260, and Ayala Corporation (respondent), the developer-vendor who originally sold the lots. Both titles carry an identical deed restriction reading: "The building proper must have a height of not more than twenty-three (23) meters above the ground directly beneath the point in question, PROVIDED that the height of structures intended exclusively for covered parking shall be subject to approval of the VENDOR. Elevator shafts, decorative structures shall not be considered for purposes of measuring the maximum height."
In January 1975 Ayala contracted to sell Lots 12 and 13, Block 28 of Legaspi Village to Western Minolco Corporation, which subsequently assigned its right to Darnoc; Ayala executed a Deed of Absolute Sale and the titles were eventually issued in Darnoc's name, with the above restriction annotated. Petitioner planned to construct a 22‑storey office building on the two lots and submitted amended building plans to respondent. Ayala refused approval, asserting the proposed building would exceed the maximum height limitation for Legaspi Village by some sixty‑two meters and demanded amendment of the plans to conform to the 23‑meter restriction.
Instead of filing in the trial court, petitioner directly filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the height restriction is unconstitutional and an order directing Ayala to allow construction of the 22‑storey building. Ayala answered, contending the restriction is part of the deed terms binding on Darnoc and that the Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction because the proper venue was the Court of First Instance. The Su...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s direct action seeking invalidation of the deed restriction and an order to compel respondent to approve construction?
- If jurisdiction existed, is the deed restriction limiting building height to 23 meters unconstitutional and unenforce...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)