Case Summary (G.R. No. 149417)
Background of the Subdivision
Cecilio J. Santos owned a 2.2-hectare land which was subdivided in 1966 into lots forming the Santos Subdivision. The subdivision was approved by the Land Registration Commission (LRC) and licensed by the National Housing Authority (NHA). Following the death of Cecilio in 1988, the subdivision already had several homeowners.
Request for Open Space
In 1997, the Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association (SSHA) requested Petitioner DueAas to provide an open space in compliance with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 957 and its amendment, Presidential Decree No. 1216. The request was denied, prompting the SSHA to seek redress from the NHA.
Regulatory Opinions and Initial Rulings
The Regional Director of HLURB initially opined that the open space requirement under the applicable PDs was not applicable to the Santos Subdivision. The SSHA later filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that the open space requirement should apply retroactively and claiming a verbal promise made by Cecilio. DueAas contested these claims, asserting she lacked involvement in her father's dealings.
HLURB Decisions
HLURB-NCR dismissed the SSHA's petition, citing a lack of evidence that SSHA was a legally organized entity. The board concluded there was no cause of action against DueAas, pointing to the absence of any open space requirement in the approved subdivision plan. The SSHA's attempt to appeal against this ruling was denied by the HLURB Board of Commissioners.
Court of Appeals Involvement
The SSHA subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the HLURB's decision. The appellate court held that the open space requirement could be inferred to have retroactive application despite the absence of explicit provision for retroactivity, citing the precedent established in Eugenio v. Executive Secretary Drilon.
Petitioner's Contentions
DueAas sought to challenge the Court of Appeals' ruling, arguing that the SSHA failed to exhaust administrative remedies since appeals should have been directed first to the Office of the President. Furthermore, she contended that SSHA, as an unregistered organization, lacked legal capacity to sue.
Legal Capacity of Respondent
It was found that SSHA, under the Revised Rules of Court, lacked the juridical personality to file suit as it had not been legally organized. Petitioner argued this rendered the SSHA’s actions void as it did not possess the legal capacity to take legal action in its own name.
Retroactivity of the Presidential Decrees
The appellate court's ruling on the retroactive applicability of P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1216 was found erroneous. The absence of a clear and express provision for retro
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 149417)
Case Overview
- This case involves a review on certiorari regarding the Decision dated December 29, 2000, of the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the earlier Decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), which had dismissed the petition of the Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association (SSHA) against petitioner Gloria Santos DueAas.
- The main issue concerns SSHA's request for an open space within the Santos Subdivision for recreational and community activities as mandated by law.
Facts of the Case
- Gloria Santos DueAas is the daughter of the late Cecilio J. Santos, who owned a 2.2-hectare land that was subdivided into the Santos Subdivision in 1966.
- The subdivision received approval from the Land Registration Commission (LRC) and the National Housing Authority (NHA).
- Upon Cecilio's death in 1988, several homeowners were already residing in the subdivision.
- In 1997, SSHA requested DueAas to provide an open space in accordance with P.D. No. 957, which was amended by P.D. No. 1216, but DueAas rejected this request.
- SSHA subsequently sought redress from the NHA, which then forwarded the complaint to HLURB.
Administrative Proceedings
- The HLURB's Expanded NCR Field Office opined that the open space requirement was not applicable to the Santos Subdivision.
- SSHA filed a petition for reconsideration, asserting that P.D. No. 957 should apply retroactively and that DueAas was bound by her father's verbal promise to provide open space.
- DueAas denied knowledge of the claims and raised several defenses, including lack of standing of SSHA and the inapplicability of P.D. No. 957 retroactively.
- HLURB-NCR dismissed the case, concluding that SSHA had not shown it was a legally recognize