Case Digest (G.R. No. 171072)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 171072)
Facts:
Goldcrest Realty Corporation v. Cypress Gardens Condominium Corporation, G.R. No. 171072, April 07, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Goldcrest Realty Corporation (Goldcrest) developed Cypress Gardens, a ten‑storey condominium in Makati, and in the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions dated April 26, 1977 constituted the project and incorporated respondent Cypress Gardens Condominium Corporation (Cypress) to manage the condominium. Title to the land was transferred to Cypress, but Goldcrest retained the two‑level penthouse (CCT No. S‑1079) and, until 1995, controlled condominium administration.After turnover of management to Cypress in 1995, Cypress discovered that Goldcrest occupied and encroached upon certain common areas. In 1998 Cypress filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking removal of structures Goldcrest had erected — including doors along the stairway between the 8th and 9th floors, a door before the 9th‑floor elevator lobby, a cyclone wire fence on the roof deck, and a permanent structure on the roof deck — and damages for the occupation.
Goldcrest defended that Section 4(c) of the Master Deed granted it the exclusive use of a portion of the roof deck as a limited common area appurtenant to the penthouse, that the structures were for privacy and security, and that the areas it used were otherwise inaccessible to other unit owners. HLURB Arbiter San Vicente conducted two ocular inspections and found enclosure of common area in front of the elevators on the 9th floor, and a permanent structure encroaching 68.01 square meters of the roof deck; the second inspection noted lack of alteration approval.
On December 2, 1999 the Arbiter ordered Goldcrest to remove the questioned structures, vacate the roof deck common areas and pay actual damages, and pay an administrative fine for constructing a second penthouse and unauthorized alterations. The HLURB Special Division (Board a quo) modified the Arbiter’s decision (May 11, 2000): it deleted the award of actual damages for lack of measurement, found Cypress had no cause of action regarding the roof deck’s limited common area because only Goldcrest had the right to use it, directed removal of structures obstructing the stairway and lobbies and those impeding unlimited common areas, and imposed a P10,000 administrative fine.
Cypress appealed to the Office of the President, which on June 2, 2003 affirmed the HLURB Special Division, rejecting Cypress’s contention that the Board had sanctioned building on limited common areas and upholding the fine for unauthorized construction. Cypress then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 79924). The Court of Appeals partly granted the appeal, holding that Section 4(c)’s exclusive use did not include an unrestricted right to erect structures or lease the limited common area to third parties, and directed Goldcrest to remove the permanent structures on the roof deck’s limited common area (Decision dated September 29, 2005). Motions for partial reconsideration were denied, and Goldcrest filed this petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging (1) the CA’s finding that Goldcrest built an office on the encroached open space of the roof deck and (2) the CA’s finding that Goldcrest impaired the easement appurtenant to the limited common area.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that Goldcrest built an office structure on an encroached area in the open space of the roof deck?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Goldcrest impaired the easement on the portion of the roof deck designated as a limited common area?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)