G.R. No. 108921 - Villanueva-Mijares vs. Court of Appeals

Gloria Santos DueAas is the daughter of the late Cecilio J. Santos, who owned a 2.2-hectare parcel at General T. De Leon, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila.
In 1966, Cecilio subdivided his land into smaller lots forming the Santos Subdivision, with the project approved by the Land Registration Commission (LRC) and a Certificate of Registration and License to Sell issued by the National Housing Authority (NHA).
At the time of Cecilio’s death in 1988, the subdivision was already home to several residents and homeowners.

Around 1997, members of the Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association (SSHA) submitted a resolution to DueAas requesting the provision of an open space within the subdivision for recreational and community activities.
The request was based on the requirements of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216, which prescribed open space standards for subdivisions.
Gloria Santos DueAas rejected the request, asserting that she was neither involved in the development nor the owner of the subdivision, and denying any knowledge of any alleged verbal promise made by her father regarding an open space.

SSHA’s petition for an open space was submitted to the HLURB after the NHA General Manager forwarded the resolution to the HLURB’s Regional Field Office in Quezon City.
In a May 29, 1997, letter, the HLURB Regional Director opined that the open space requirement under P.D. No. 957 (as amended) was not applicable to Santos Subdivision because the subdivision plans approved in 1966 did not include such a provision.
SSHA filed a petition/motion for reconsideration (HLURB Case No. REM-070297-9821), alleging:

That P.D. No. 957 should apply retroactively despite the approval date of the subdivision plans;
That DueAas should be bound by an alleged verbal promise made by her father to provide an open space for Phase III of the subdivision.

SSHA failed to present evidence of being a duly organized juridical entity with capacity to sue;
There was no cause of action against DueAas since she was not the owner/developer or the lawful successor of Cecilio Santos;
The subdivision plan did not require the provision of an open space; and
The alleged verbal promise was inadmissible under the “dead man’s statute.”

SSHA appealed the HLURB decision to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which affirmed the dismissal based on:

The non-retroactivity of P.D. No. 957 and its amendments;
The absence of an express retroactive provision, and the fact that the case was filed nine years after Cecilio’s death making the action time-barred under Article 1145 of the Civil Code.

The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 51601, reversed the HLURB decision and remanded the case to determine a definitive land area for the open space, relying on:

The inferred retroactive intent of P.D. No. 957 as seen in earlier jurisprudence (Eugenio v. Exec. Sec. Drilon);
The finding that the action was not barred by prescription or laches because the obligation to provide an open space is a legal mandate and not predicated on an oral contract.

Gloria Santos DueAas subsequently moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied on July 31, 2001.

The CA improperly entertained SSHA’s petition because the proper jurisdiction on such matters lies with the Office of the President pursuant to Section 2, Rule XVIII of the 1996 HLURB Rules of Procedure.
SSHA, as a non-registered association, lacked the legal personality to sue.
There was no cause of action against her since she was not the owner/developer of Santos Subdivision.
The retroactive application of P.D. No. 957 (and by extension P.D. No. 1216) was erroneous because both decrees lack any express provision for retroactivity, which would impermissibly impair vested rights.

Whether SSHA was required to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, considering that the matters raised were purely legal rather than factual or administrative.

Whether the Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association, as a non-registered entity, had the legal personality and capacity to sue in its own name.
Whether the individual members’ signatures on the resolution and complaint could confer upon the association the capacity to pursue the action.

Whether provisions of P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1216, can be applied retroactively to require the provision of an open space in Santos Subdivision, which was developed and approved before the enactment of the decree.
Whether such retroactive application would be contrary to Article 4 of the Civil Code, which mandates that laws shall not have retroactive effect unless expressly provided.