Title
Daalco Development Corporation vs. Palmas Del Mar Homeowners Association
Case
G.R. No. 264652
Decision Date
Nov 4, 2024
Daalco contested the CA's decision requiring it to donate open spaces and turn over management of the water system to the PDM-HOA, claiming it complied with donation rules and that water facilities are not included.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221641)

Factual Background

On December 8, 2016, PDM-HOA lodged a formal Complaint against Daalco, insisting that all open spaces, roads, and parks within the subdivision should be donated to the Bacolod City government in compliance with Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1216. PDM-HOA accused Daalco of only partially complying by donating specific areas, such as Lot 4 and Road Lot 5B. The homeowners association further demanded the transfer of ownership and management of the water facility to themselves to ensure residents had access to quality water services under Republic Act (RA) No. 9904, known as the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations.

Daalco countered that its contributions met the legal requirement of 30% donation of open spaces, as they intended to donate 38,335 square meters out of a total 127,142 square meter project area. Daalco argued that PD No. 1216 does not mandate the donation of water facilities or the underlying land to local governments and raised concerns regarding its rights since the water system also served the Palmas del Mar Resort Hotel.

HLURB Decision

The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Arbiter ruled in favor of PDM-HOA, ordering Daalco to donate the property associated with the water system to Bacolod City and to turn over management to the PDM-HOA after adequate consultation with its general membership. The Arbiter emphasized that PD No. 1216 did not provide any exceptions for the donation of open spaces, and cited RA No. 9904 as validation for PDM-HOA’s right to manage the water system.

HSAC Decision

Daalco appealed the HLURB decision to the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), which upheld the HLURB ruling. The HSAC referred to the precedent set in Liwag v. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc., affirming that Lot 4 A, where the water pipes were located, constituted part of the open spaces owed to Bacolod City.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon further appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) sided with PDM-HOA, asserting that Daalco was legally required to donate Lot 4 in its entirety, despite their claim of already donating enough area to satisfy legal requirements. The CA recognized the water facilities as part of the subdivision's essential services and reiterated PDM-HOA’s right to manage the waterworks system under RA No. 9904, prioritizing resident welfare over Daalco's business interests.

Parties’ Arguments

In its petition, Daalco argued that the CA erred by enforcing an obligation to donate the entirety of Lot 4, claiming from legal precedents that developers are not compelled to donate open spaces. Daalco also maintained that the water system was designed to serve both the subdivision and the Resort, thereby contesting PDM-HOA’s capability to manage such facilities effectively.

PDM-HOA countered that Daalco had already submitted development plans that included Lot 4 as open space, rendering any deviations harmful to the subdivision’s residents.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision, holding that Daalco was not obligated to donate the property housing the water system. The ruling underscored that the applicable provisions of PD No. 957, as amended, did not compel the donation of water system properties,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.