Case Summary (G.R. No. 146667)
Procedural History
Garin filed a Petition for Mandamus with an application for preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel the City to accept and process his building-permit application without the homeowners’ clearance and to declare Section 10 of Ordinance No. 02-047 unconstitutional insofar as it tasks homeowners’ associations to issue clearances. The RTC denied injunctive relief and suspended proceedings pending Garin’s exhaustion of administrative remedies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Garin’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law and Institutional Framework
Primary legal instruments considered: the 1987 Constitution (as the applicable constitution given the decision date), Republic Act No. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 (Section 10), HLURB resolutions and rules (including HLURB Resolution No. R-771 and Resolution No. 963-17), and procedural rules (Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure).
Petitioner’s Principal Contentions
Garin contended that: (1) the RTC should have decided the constitutionality of Section 10 without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies; (2) requiring a homeowners’ association clearance and conditioning it on membership and payment of assessments violated his constitutional right to disassociate and constituted an invalid delegation of legislative authority; and (3) there was no deed annotation creating automatic membership, so Katarungan lacked contractual privity to compel membership or dues.
Respondents’ Positions
Katarungan asserted authority to require dues and to condition issuance of services/clearances on payment, citing RA 9904 and its IRR—specifically provisions empowering associations to enforce compliance with building, zoning and subdivision rules and prohibiting deprivation of basic services when dues are unpaid. The City and Mayor argued that the authority to issue clearances and confer related powers derived from national law (RA 9904) and HLURB rules, not solely the local ordinance, and thus HLURB jurisdiction over intra-association disputes is proper. They also contended that the RTC order was interlocutory and not properly the subject of the present remedy, or in any event that petitioner pursued the appropriate relief given the RTC’s effective disposition.
Issues Framed for Resolution
The Supreme Court identified four issues: (1) whether a Rule 45 petition was the correct remedy to challenge the RTC orders; (2) whether Garin met requisites for judicial review to raise the ordinance’s constitutionality; (3) whether the RTC erred in deferring to HLURB primary jurisdiction; and (4) whether HLURB has jurisdiction over disputes between a homeowners’ association and a non-member homeowner.
Remedy and Nature of the RTC Order
Although the RTC’s suspension order superficially appeared interlocutory, the Supreme Court treated it as effectively dismissive because the temporary suspension was indefinite pending HLURB action, creating the practical result that the RTC would not act further unless petitioner first resorted to administrative remedies. Because the dispositive effect was tantamount to dismissal, the Court found Rule 45 review to be the appropriate remedy to bring the matter before the Supreme Court.
Judicial-Review Prerequisites and Application
The Court reiterated the four requisites for constitutional adjudication: (1) an actual case or controversy; (2) standing; (3) early raising of the constitutional question; and (4) the constitutional question must be the very lis mota—i.e., necessary to the case’s resolution. While the first three requisites were satisfied (actual controversy, petitioner’s standing as the allegedly injured homeowner, and timely presentation of the constitutional issue), the fourth requisite failed: the petition’s constitutional question was not necessary to resolve the controversy because the substantive dispute could be decided on narrower grounds implicated by RA 9904 and the association’s conduct.
Analysis of Ordinance, RA 9904, and Petitioner’s Proof
The Court observed that RA 9904 and its IRR make membership optional unless expressly provided in the deed of sale, contract, or title annotation. If Garin’s allegation that his deed lacks an automatic-membership annotation were proven, Katarungan’s conditioning of clearance on membership could violate RA 9904. However, Garin failed to attach documentary proof of the deed or its lack of annotation; he relied on allegation alone. The Court also noted that petitioner did not specify whether the assessments demanded were solely membership fees or included legitimate charges for basic services and issuance of the clearance. The Court emphasized that Garin’s dispute was primarily with Katarungan’s alleged conduct—not with the ordinance itself—and that the City’s requirement for a homeowners’ association clearance was a valid exercise of municipal police power and consistent wit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 146667)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 216492; Decision penned by Justice Leonen of the Third Division; reported 119 O.G. No. 24, 4377 (June 12, 2023); decision date in caption January 20, 2021.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, Orders dated September 5, 2014 and January 9, 2015, which denied injunctive relief and temporarily suspended proceedings pending exhaustion of administrative remedies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
- The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition and AFFIRMED the Regional Trial Court’s September 5, 2014 and January 9, 2015 Orders in Civil Case No. 3930.
Material Facts
- Petitioner Artoo P. Garin is a resident of Pasig City who sought to build a house in Katarungan Village, Muntinlupa City.
- Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047, Section 10, lists as a prerequisite for project approval a “Homeowners Association Clearance” among other documentary requirements.
- Petitioner requested the homeowners association clearance from Katarungan Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (Katarungan) and explicitly informed Katarungan that he was not a member of the association.
- Katarungan refused to issue the clearance unless petitioner paid assessment fees and enrolled as a member; petitioner was required by Katarungan to pay assessments amounting to P72,000.00 and to sign up for membership.
- Because he could not obtain the clearance, the City of Muntinlupa declined to process petitioner’s building permit application.
Lower Court Proceedings and Orders
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with an application for a preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court, seeking to compel the City of Muntinlupa to accept his building permit application and to declare Section 10 of Ordinance No. 02-047 unconstitutional insofar as it tasks homeowners associations with issuing clearances.
- On September 5, 2014, the Regional Trial Court denied the injunctive relief and temporarily suspended the case pending petitioner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies with the HLURB, effectively creating an indeterminate suspension and presuming that the trial court would not act further absent administrative exhaustion.
- The trial court found petitioner failed to show a clear right or imminent substantial injury (he had not yet commenced construction), and invoked Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations), which vests HLURB with authority over intra-association disputes.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Regional Trial Court in its January 9, 2015 Order, which emphasized that the alleged suppression of petitioner’s right was caused by Katarungan, not by the City Ordinance, and that whether Katarungan properly imposed requirements under RA 9904 should first be determined by the HLURB.
Parties’ Pleadings and Positions — Petitioner
- Petitioner contends that the constitutionality of Section 10 of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 may be addressed by the courts without his first exhausting administrative remedies before the HLURB.
- He argues that the procedure imposed by the trial court “serves only to pressure the building applicant to capitulate” and chills the constitutional right to disassociate.
- Petitioner asserts his deed of sale contains no annotation of automatic membership in the association, alleging therefore lack of privity and no contract with Katarungan.
- He claims Katarungan abused its delegated power because the Ordinance allegedly prescribes no specific limits or parameters for the issuance of the clearance, amounting to an invalid delegation of legislative authority.
- Petitioner reiterates his prayer to set aside the trial court Orders and to declare Section 10 of Ordinance No. 02-047 unconstitutional.
Parties’ Pleadings and Positions — Katarungan Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Katarungan maintains that if petitioner wishes to avail of its services (including issuance of clearance), he must pay required dues, fees, and charges.
- It justifies its refusal to issue clearance by reference to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9904, which empowers an association to cause compliance with, among others, structures to be built within the subdivision in accordance with existing laws.
- Katarungan cites Section 72(b) of the IRR of RA 9904, prohibiting deprivation of any homeowner of the right to avail of or enjoy basic community services and facilities provided that dues, charges, and other fees for such services have been duly paid.
- It argues petitioner’s right to abode may be limited by the general welfare clause under Section 16 of the Local Government Code and contends Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 is presumed a valid exercise of police power.
- Katarungan reiterates that the dispute is intra-association and properly cognizable by the HLURB rather than regular trial courts.
Parties’ Pleadings and Positions — City of Muntinlupa and Mayor Jaime R. Fresnedi
- The City and Mayor cite Section 5(c) of HLURB Resolution No. R-771 (2004) and the IRR of RA 9904 to argue the authority of homeowners associations to issue clearances and impose fees is grounded in national law (RA 9904) and HLURB implementation, not solely by the City Ordinance.
- They emphasize that RA 9904 confers authority on HLURB to implement such powers and that Section 8 of RA 9904 requires every homeowner to pay necessary fees, charges, and special assessments of the homeowners’ association.
- Respondents argue that even if Katarungan’s power derived from the City Ordinance, it would still be valid by virtue of local zoning provisions (Article III, Section 2 of the “Zoning Ordinance” referenced by respondents), although no copy of that Zoning Ordinance was attached.
- They also contend petitioner resorted to an improper remedy, characterizing the trial court’s Order as interlocutory and generally not directly appealable.
Issues Presented for Supreme Court Resolution (as framed by the Court)
- Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the correct remedy to question the Regional Trial Court’s Orders.
- Whether petitioner Garin has complied with all requisites of judicial review to challenge the constitutionality of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047.
- Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in ruling that primary jurisdiction lies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Bo