Case Digest (G.R. No. 199353) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) v. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. et al., decided on April 4, 2018 under G.R. Nos. 199353 & 199389, the petitioner LEMANS acquired Concession 3, a roof‐deck unit of the Legaspi Towers condominium in Makati City, on March 9, 1989. In October 1990, LEMANS secured a building permit from Engr. Nelson Q. Irasga, Makati’s Municipal Building Official, and commenced construction of an additional floor, Concession 4, atop Concession 3. Respondent condominium corporation Legaspi Towers, invoking its Master Deed and By‐Laws and noting the absence of a formal amendment or requisite unit‐owners’ consent under Republic Act No. 4726 (Condominium Act), interdicted the work, barred material delivery, and sought cancellation of the permit from Irasga and the Department of Public Works and Highways. On February 20, 1991, LEMANS filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for a writ of mandatory injunction, which the RTC granted on April 3, 19 Case Digest (G.R. No. 199353) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background
- Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. (“Legaspi Towers”) owns a seven‐storey condominium at Paseo de Roxas, Makati City, with a roof deck and two concession levels above it (Concession 2 and Concession 3).
- On March 9, 1989, Leviste Management System, Inc. (“LEMANS”) purchased Concession 3 from its original owner, Leon Antonio Mercado, and secured a building permit in October 1990 to construct an additional unit (Concession 4) atop the roof deck of Concession 3.
- Procedural History
- Legaspi Towers objected to the construction as illegal; it barred material entry and petitioned Building Official Irasga to cancel the permit, but the permit stood due to apparent compliance and signatory by Legaspi Towers’ then‐president.
- On February 20, 1991, LEMANS filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati seeking a writ of mandatory injunction to complete Concession 4; on April 3, 1991, the writ was issued. Legaspi Towers filed a third‐party complaint against Irasga and DPWH Secretary De Jesus to nullify the permit.
- On May 24, 2002, the RTC issued an interlocutory order applying Article 448 of the Civil Code and the Depra v. Dumlao doctrine, ruling LEMANS was a builder in good faith but did not own the air space; LEMANS’ Rule 65 certiorari petition was denied by the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 4, 2004.
- The RTC rendered final judgment on October 25, 2005, ordering Legaspi Towers to either appropriate Concession 4 upon indemnity or agree on lease terms, dismissing counterclaims. Both parties’ motions for reconsideration were denied.
- On May 26, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 88082 (Legaspi Towers’ appeal) and dismissed LEMANS’ appeal for defective brief preparation. LEMANS and Legaspi Towers separately filed Rule 45 petitions before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether the interlocutory order applying Article 448 and Depra is binding in the Rule 45 petitions and prevents relitigation of LEMANS’ good‐faith status.
- Substantive Issues
- Whether Article 448 of the Civil Code and the Depra v. Dumlao doctrine apply to the construction of Concession 4 by a condominium unit owner.
- Whether Legaspi Towers may demolish or abate Concession 4 as an illegal nuisance under the Condominium Act and the condominium’s Master Deed and By-Laws.
- Whether the building permit for Concession 4 is valid and binding.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)