Case Digest (G.R. No. 71169)
Facts:
Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al., G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281, December 22, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
The consolidated proceedings arose from multiple actions by homeowners and the homeowners’ association to enforce restrictive covenants contained in deeds of sale for lots in Bel‑Air Village, Makati. In G.R. No. 71169 petitioners Jose D. Sangalang and Lutgarda D. Sangalang (joined by other homeowners and with Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) intervening) sued Ayala Corporation (successor to Makati Development Corporation) seeking specific performance of restrictive easements (including residential‑use covenants and maintenance of a perimeter wall along Jupiter Street) and damages for alleged conversion and commercialization caused by Ayala’s removal of the wall and later acts. The trial court (Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig) granted plaintiffs substantial damages and ordered reconstruction of the perimeter wall; the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed for lack of cause of action. The case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Several companion cases (G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281) were brought principally by BAVA to enjoin and obtain damages from specific residents or lessees (private respondents) who had converted houses on Jupiter or Reposo Streets into commercial establishments (a restaurant, a bake and coffee shop, an advertising firm, and other commercial uses). At the trial-court level, results varied: some trial courts ruled for BAVA and awarded relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed in each case, relying in large part on its earlier ruling in AC‑G.R. No. 66649 and on municipal and Metropolitan Manila Commission zoning measures (Makati Ordinance No. 81 and MMC Ordinance No. 81‑01) that had reclassified the area and treated Jupiter Street as a boundary or commercial corridor. BAVA elevated those reversals to the Supreme Court by Rule 45 petitions; the matters were consolidated for decision pursuant to the Court’s resolutions.
The factual record established that (1) the original deed restrictions limited use of lots to residential purposes and reserved enforcement to BAVA, MDC/Ayala, or any registered owner; (2) Ayala had at various times erected and rebuilt a fence/wall along the commercial block fronting Buendia/Jupiter but commercial lot buyers later demolished portions to access their lots; (3) Ayala notified BAVA in the early 1970s of its plan to subdivide and sell the commercial lots, the proposed deed restrictions for those lots, and proposed membership for commercial lot owners in BAVA; (4) Jupiter Street was treated in zoning instruments as a boundary between Bel‑Air and the commercial strip and was ultimately classified in MMC Ordinance No. 81‑01 as part of a high‑intensity commercial zone; and (5) municipal officials in 1977 directed that Jupiter Street be opened to public vehicular use and the village gat...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Court of Appeals consider and base its decision on municipal and MMC zoning ordinances not expressly assigned as error on appeal?
- Can Ayala Corporation be held liable in specific performance or damages for removal of the perimeter wall and the consequent commercialization of Jupiter Street?
- Are the deed restrictions limiting use to residential purposes enforceable against private lot owners/lessees along Jupiter Street in light of Makati Ordinance No. 81 and MMC Ordinance No. 81‑01 (zoning reclassification and exercise of police power)?
- Were the Court of Appeals’ reversals o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)