Case Digest (G.R. No. 199353)
Facts:
Leviste Management System, Inc. v. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc., G.R. Nos. 199353 and 199389, April 4, 2018, First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) sued Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. (Legaspi Towers) after LEMANS constructed an additional structure (called Concession 4) above its roof‑deck unit (Concession 3) in the Legaspi Towers condominium project in Makati. Concession 3 had been acquired by LEMANS in 1989; construction of Concession 4 commenced in October 1990 after LEMANS secured a building permit. Legaspi Towers objected, prevented delivery of construction materials inside the condominium, and sought cancellation of the permit from the municipal building official, Engr. Nelson Irasga, who refused to cancel because the application complied with permit requirements and bore the signature of the then‑president of Legaspi Corporation.LEMANS filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, Makati (Civil Case No. 91‑634) on February 20, 1991 seeking, among other relief, a writ of mandatory injunction to complete Concession 4; the RTC issued the writ on April 3, 1991. Legaspi Towers filed a third‑party complaint against Irasga and the Secretary of Public Works and Highways (Jose P. De Jesus) to annul the building permit. After pretrial and presentation of evidence, the RTC issued interlocutory orders (May 24, 2002 and August 19, 2002) applying Article 448 of the Civil Code and the Court’s ruling in Depra v. Dumlao which treated the builder as one in good faith; LEMANS filed a Rule 65 petition (CA G.R. SP No. 73621) which the Court of Appeals denied on March 4, 2004.
Following presentation of valuation evidence, the RTC rendered judgment on October 25, 2005 ordering Legaspi Towers to exercise the Article 448 option to appropriate the additional structure within 60 days or, if it chose not to appropriate after indemnity, to lease or have lease terms fixed by the court; the third‑party complaint and counterclaims were dismissed and costs were awarded against LEMANS. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on May 26, 2011 affirmed the RTC: it dismissed LEMANS’ appeal for noncompliance with briefing rules and, as to Legaspi’s appeal, held that although Concession 4 was a nuisance, LEMANS had been declared a builder in good faith so the structure could not be demolished and the building permit was valid if issuance was ministerial. Motions for reconsideration were denied on November 17, 2011.
LEMANS and Legaspi Towers separately filed petitions for review under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court raising, inter alia, (a) whether Article 448 and the Depra...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the interlocutory RTC orders declaring LEMANS a builder in good faith be treated as binding and foreclose Legaspi Towers from contesting that status?
- Are Article 448 (and the rule in Depra v. Dumlao) applicable to improvements made by a unit owner in a condominium project recorded under Section 4 of R.A. No. 4726 (The Condominium Act) where the Master Deed and By‑Laws govern relations among unit owners and the condominium corporation?
- Does Legaspi Towers have the right to abate or demolish Concession 4 (at LEMANS’ expense) despite LEMANS’ asserted status as a builder in good fait...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)