Case Digest (G.R. No. 134692)
Facts:
Eliseo Fajardo, Jr., and Marissa Fajardo, Petitioners bought Lot No. 33, Block 14, De la Costa Homes, Barangka, Marikina from Freedom To Build, Incorporated, Respondent under a Contract to Sell and Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384 containing a Restrictive Covenant limiting front easements and prescribing second-storey setback and floor-area restrictions.Despite warnings, petitioners extended their roof to the property line and expanded the second floor beyond the covenant limits; respondent sued in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 261, Pasig City for demolition, the RTC ordered demolition, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and petitioners appealed to the Court.
Issues:
- Are the Restrictive Covenant provisions valid and enforceable against petitioners?
- May Freedom To Build, Incorporated, Respondent enforce the covenant despite alleged relinquishment of ownership and the existence of a homeowners' association?
- Is demolition an appropriate remedy absent an express dem
Case Digest (G.R. No. 134692)
Facts:
- Parties and transaction
- Freedom To Build, Incorporated, an owner-developer and seller of low-cost housing, sold a house and lot designated Lot No. 33, Block 14, De la Costa Homes, Barangka, Marikina, Metro Manila to Eliseo Fajardo, Jr., and Marissa Fajardo (petitioners).
- The parties executed a Contract to Sell containing a Restrictive Covenant prescribing easement and building setback requirements and limitations on upward and front expansion.
- The same restrictions were annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384 issued in the names of the petitioners.
- Specific restrictive provisions and modification
- The Restrictive Covenant mandated a two-meter front easement, prohibited structures on that easement, restricted second-storey expansions to the back portion and prohibited front extensions beyond specified lines, and prescribed precise setback measurements for 60 sq. m. units.
- By mutual agreement between the Homeowners Association and the developer, the front setback restriction was relaxed from four meters to two meters.
- Breach and administrative warnings
- Petitioners extended the roof to the property line and expanded the second floor directly above the original front wall, exceeding the floor area limits of the Restrictive Covenant.
- Respondent issued repeated warnings to petitioners to remove the unauthorized extensions; petitioners did not comply.
- Litigation history and lower court orders
- Freedom To Build, Incorporated filed an action in the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 261, Pasig City, for demolition of the unauthorized structures.
- The trial court ordered petitioners to immediately demolish and remove the extension exceeding the Restrictive Covenant limits and provided that the Branch Sheriff would execute the decision at the defendants' expense should they fail to comply.
- The trial court declined to award damages and attorney's fees for lack of evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision.
- Petitioners' contentions on appeal
- Petitioners contended that adjacent owners did not object and even favored similar expansions.
- Petitioners asserted that family needs justified expansion, citing possible marriages of their two children and future shared living.
- Petitioners challenged respondent's personality to enforce the covenant, arguing respondent relinquished ownership and interest upon execution of deeds of sale.
- Petitioners ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Validity and interpretation of restrictive covenants
- Whether the Restrictive Covenant provisions (setbacks, easements, limits on expansion) are valid and enforceable.
- Whether frontline and second-storey expansion restrictions constitute permissible limitations on use of land.
- Binding effect and notice
- Whether petitioners are bound by the Restrictive Covenant, given its inclusion in the Contract to Sell and annotation on the Transfer Certificate of Title.
- Standing to enforce the covenant
- Whether Freedom To Build, Incorporated retained the legal personality or interest to enforce the Restrictive Covenant after conveyance of lots.
- Whether enforcement jurisdiction properly lies with the homeowners' association or with respondent where the homeowners' association has authorized enforcement by respondent.
- Remedies for breach
- Whether demolition is an appropriate and available remedy for breach of a covenant that proscribes doing an act.
- Whether absence of an explicit demoliti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)