Case Digest (G.R. No. 134269)
Facts:
The Learning Child, Inc. and Spouses Felipe and Mary Anne Alfonso, et al., G.R. Nos. 134269, 134440 and 144518, July 07, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.
In 1984 Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) sold a parcel in Ayala Alabang to the Yusons; in 1987 the Yusons sold it to the Alfonsos. A Deed of Restrictions annotated on TCT No. 149166 limited the lot’s use “exclusively for the establishment and maintenance thereon of a preparatory (nursery and kindergarten) school.” ALI transferred enforcement powers over such restrictions to the homeowners’ association, the Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA).
In 1989 petitioners opened The Learning Child (TLC) as a preparatory school. In 1991 TLC expanded to include a grade‑school program (School of the Holy Cross). Neighbors and AAVA protested, asserting violations of the Deed of Restrictions and of zoning rules (MMC Ordinance No. 81‑01 limiting nursery/kindergarten schools to two classrooms in R‑1 zones) and certain barangay parking rules.
On October 13, 1992 AAVA sued TLC and the Alfonsos for injunction in the RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 92‑2950). Adjacent property owners filed a complaint‑in‑intervention. On July 22, 1994 the RTC enjoined operation beyond nursery and kindergarten and limited nursery/kindergarten to two classrooms; it dismissed the intervention’s claim for damages. TLC and the Alfonsos moved for reconsideration, arguing that Muntinlupa Zoning Ordinance No. 91‑39 had reclassified the lot as “institutional,” removing the residential zoning basis for enforcement. On March 1, 1995 the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
AAVA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 51096). On November 11, 1997 the Court of Appeals set aside the March 1, 1995 order and reinstated the July 22, 1994 RTC decision. TLC and the Alfonsos sought reconsideration; meanwhile five minors who benefited from TLC’s full‑inclusion program (Jose Marie V. Aquino, et al.) filed a motion to intervene before the CA. On July 2, 1998 the Court of Appeals denied the motions (including the intervention) and that denial was thereafter brought to the Supreme Court in two petitions: G.R. No. 134269 (TLC & Alfonsos) and G.R. No. 134440 (Aquino, et al.). Both petitions are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Separately, on October 3, 1994 the Muntinlupa Sanguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 94‑179 correcting an alleged typographical error in Appendix B of Ordinance No. 91‑39—changing the description from “Lot 25, Block 1” to “Lot 25, Block 3,” the latter being the parcel on which TLC sits. HLURB deferred action on the municipal resolution and remanded for hearings, treating the change as rezoning; the Office of the President later set aside the HLURB resolution, holding the municipal act a mere rectification and validating Resolution No. 94‑179. AAVA and adjacent owners sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 54438), which on August 15, 200...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals correct in upholding the validity of Muntinlupa Resolution No. 94‑179 (the municipal correction of a typographical error in Ordinance No. 91‑39)?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in denying the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Jose Marie V. Aquino, et al.?
- Should TLC and Spouses Alfonso be enjoined from continuing the operation of a grade school on the subject property?
- Does Muntinlupa Ordinance No. 91‑39, as corrected by Resolution No. 94‑179, have the effect of nullifying the Deed of Restrictions on the subject property?
-
...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)