Case Summary (G.R. No. 134692)
Facts
- Petitioners purchased a 60 sq. m. house and lot from respondent under a Contract to Sell that expressly incorporated front-setback and second-storey expansion limits (a two-meter front easement; second-storey confined to the rear portion). These restrictions also appear on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384.
- Despite warnings, petitioners extended their roof to the property line and built the second storey forward of the original apex.
- Respondent sued in the RTC to demolish the unauthorized extensions. The RTC ordered immediate demolition at petitioners’ expense; denied damages and attorney’s fees for lack of proof.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners then sought review before the Supreme Court, arguing (a) no adjacent owner objected, (b) respondent had relinquished any interest in the subdivision, (c) enforcement now rested with the homeowners’ association, and (d) absence of a demolition clause in the covenant precluded that remedy.
Issue
Whether the restrictive covenant is valid and enforceable by respondent; whether petitioners must demolish the unauthorized extensions despite no specific demolition penalty clause.
Applicable Law and Principles
• Restrictive covenants are negative servitudes or “negative easements,” limiting uses of land for the benefit of a designated community.
• Enforceability requirements: reasonableness, public policy alignment, and non-restraint of trade.
• Article 1168, New Civil Code: “When the obligation consists in not doing and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall be undone at his expense.”
• Developer’s right to enforce covenants persists if the homeowners’ association delegates or confirms enforcement authority.
• Absence of a demolition penalty clause does not bar judicially mandated undoing of forbidden acts under Article 1168.
Analysis
- Validity of Covenant
– The two-meter front easement and rear-only second-storey expansion promote aesthetics, privacy, overcrowding prevention, and the original low-cost housing design (accommodating ≥100 families/hectare).
– Such frontline construction restrictions have been consistently upheld as reasonable and not contrary to public policy. - Binding Nature
– Petitioners signed the Contract to Sell and the covenant appears on the title; good faith cannot excuse noncompliance. - Enforcement Standing
– Though petitioners assert respondent relinquished its interest, the homeowners’ association formally entrusted respondent with enforcement. Thus responde
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 134692)
Facts
- Freedom To Build, Inc. sold Lot No. 33, Block 14 of De la Costa Homes in Barangka, Marikina, to petitioners Eliseo Jr. and Marissa Fajardo under a Contract to Sell.
- The Contract and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384 contained a Restrictive Covenant limiting front easements and expansions.
- Petitioners extended their roof to the property line and built a second floor above the original front wall, in violation of the covenant.
- Respondent issued repeated warnings which petitioners ignored, prompting a demolition suit.
Restrictive Covenant Provisions
- Easements: mandatory two-meter front easement; no structures allowed within that zone.
- Upward expansion: second storey permitted only above rear portion and not beyond original apex.
- Front expansion: second floor must be set back six meters from the front property line and four meters from the front wall, as per the 60 sq. m. unit design.
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court (Branch 261, Pasig City): ordered immediate demolition of unauthorized extensions; denied damages and attorney’s fees for lack of evidence.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed RTC decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50085.
- Supreme Court: petitioners sought review, challenging validity and enforceability of the covenant and respondent’s standing.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Adjacent owners do not object and intend similar expansions.
- Future family needs justify additional living space.
- Respondent relinqui