Case Digest (G.R. No. 146987)
Facts:
Metro Properties, Inc. v. Magallanes Village Association, Inc., G.R. No. 146987, October 19, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.The petition arises from a homeowners’ dispute between Magallanes Village Association, Inc. (respondent) and Metro Properties, Inc. (petitioner). On September 9, 1993 respondent filed a complaint with the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) (HIGC Case No. HOA-93-046) for injunction and damages, praying for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged that petitioner bought two lots in Magallanes Village burdened by a Deed of Restrictions requiring compliance with association rules, including a nine-meter building height limit and prior approval of building plans, and that petitioner violated an approved renovation plan by raising a proposed roof from the approved 1.50 meters to about 3.705 meters, thereby exceeding the nine-meter ceiling.
Acting on respondent’s application, the HIGC issued a TRO on September 17, 1993 and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on September 23, 1993. Petitioner answered on September 27, 1993, denying the allegations and moving for a preliminary hearing on several defenses: lack of HIGC jurisdiction; lack of legal personality of the association to enforce the Deed of Restrictions; unenforceability of the restrictions for lack of annotation on the titles; and failure to attach a certification against forum shopping as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. In a Resolution dated October 7, 1993 the HIGC ruled it had jurisdiction under Executive Order No. 535 and denied summary dismissal on the other defenses.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals on November 18, 1993 (seeking TRO and/or preliminary injunction) alleging that the HIGC acted with grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated June 13, 2000 (CA-G.R. SP No. 32624), dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition, holding that the HIGC properly exercised original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between a homeowners’ association and its member under PD No. 902-A as implemented by EO No. 535 and later Executive Order No. 90. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied in a Resolution dated January 31, 2001.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court of Appeals have dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the HIGC’s Resolution?
- Did the HIGC have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the homeowners’ association and its member over alleged violations of the Deed of Restrictions and th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)