Case Digest (G.R. No. 86774)
Facts:
Enedina Presley v. Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc., and The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86774, August 21, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The private respondent, Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA), filed a complaint for specific performance and damages with a preliminary injunction against Teofilo and Rosario Almendras (since deceased and whose interest was later claimed by petitioner Enedina Presley) for alleged violation of deed restrictions in Bel‑Air Subdivision and for unpaid association dues. The Almendrases were registered owners of a house and lot at 102 Jupiter Street, Makati, with deed restrictions annotated in their title that the lot be used for residential purposes only. Presley was the lessee and operator of a hot pan de sal store on the premises.
BAVA alleged that Presley’s commercial operation violated the deed restrictions and also sought recovery of unpaid association dues amounting to P3,803.55; BAVA sent a letter requesting cessation of the store. The Regional Trial Court (trial court) found for BAVA, permanently enjoining commercial use of the property and ordering the defendants to pay the assessed dues with interest and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in a decision promulgated November 28, 1988; its denial of rehearing was entered January 20, 1989.
Petitioner brought a petition for review to the Supreme Court challenging (A) the CA ruling as inconsistent with this Court’s consolidated decision of December 22, 1988 in the series of Bel‑Air cases (the Sangalang consolidated decision, 168 SCRA 634 [1988]), (B) the finding that petitioner was solidarily liable for the unpaid association dues, and (C) the award of attorney’s fees. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner Presley died on January 4, 1991 and was substituted by her two daughters, Olivia V. Pizzaro and Consuelo V. Lacson. The Court considered the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining enforcement of the deed restrictions and prohibiting petitioner’s commercial use of the property in light of this Court’s consolidated Bel‑Air decision (Sangalang) and the MMC Ordinance No. 81‑01?
- Was the adjudication that petitioner is solidarily liable with the Almendrases for unpaid association dues supported by the evidence or rendered moot by subsequent events?
- Was the award of attorney’s fees against p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)