Case Summary (G.R. No. 146987)
Factual Background
On April 2, 1993, Metro Properties, Inc. applied to Magallanes Village Association, Inc. for a major renovation/repair permit. The plans approved by the Association included installation of a roof with a maximum elevation of 1.50 meters from the building’s roof deck. On inspection conducted August 25, 1993, the Association’s manager found that the petitioner had raised the roof to 3.705 meters, and that the overall structure exceeded the nine-meter height restriction in the Deed of Restrictions annotated on TCT Nos. 160184 and 160185. The Association sent a notice to Metro Properties to discontinue construction. After the petitioner refused, the Association filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the HIGC on September 9, 1993, seeking issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction.
Administrative Proceedings at HIGC
The HIGC issued a TRO on September 17, 1993, and set hearing of the application for preliminary injunction on September 23, 1993. Metro Properties answered on September 27, 1993, and moved for preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses, asserting lack of HIGC jurisdiction, lack of the Association’s legal personality to enforce the Deed of Restrictions, alleged non-annotation rendering the Deed unenforceable, and failure to attach a certification against forum shopping. On October 7, 1993, the HIGC ruled that, under Executive Order No. 535, controversies between a homeowners association and its member fell within HIGC’s exclusive jurisdiction and denied summary dismissal on the other defenses.
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
On November 18, 1993, Metro Properties, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the HIGC’s assertion of jurisdiction as a grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated June 13, 2000, dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals held that the HIGC had not committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction. Metro Properties’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated January 31, 2001.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Procedural Objection
Metro Properties, Inc. brought a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court contesting the Court of Appeals’ rulings. The Supreme Court observed at the outset that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Rule 45 petition due to petitioner’s failure to interpose a motion for reconsideration of the assailed HIGC resolution. The Court recalled the rule that a motion for reconsideration is ordinarily a condition precedent to a petition for certiorari, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan and Ilusorio.
Issue Presented
The principal issue presented was whether the HIGC acted with grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the dispute between Magallanes Village Association, Inc. and Metro Properties, Inc., or whether jurisdiction properly lay with the HIGC under the applicable statutory and executive instruments.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Metro Properties, Inc. contended that the HIGC had no jurisdiction over the dispute. The petitioner further asserted that the Association lacked legal personality to enforce the Deed of Restrictions, that the Deed was unenforceable for not being annotated on the TCTs, and that the complaint violated Supreme Court Circular 28-91 by omitting a certification against forum shopping.
Court of Appeals’ Rationale
The Court of Appeals concluded that the HIGC had exclusive and original jurisdiction. The appellate court relied on the evolution of the Home Financing entity’s charter: from the Home Financing Commission under Republic Act No. 580, to the Home Financing Corporation under Executive Order No. 535, and later to the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation under Executive Order No. 90. The Court of Appeals pointed to the expanded powers granted by EO No. 535 to require registration of homeowners associations, to exercise powers akin to the SEC with respect to homeowners associations, and to regulate and supervise such associations. The Court of Appeals found the dispute to be an intra-corporate controversy between a homeowners association and one of its members, thus falling squarely within HIGC’s jurisdiction under its Revised Rules.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Jurisdictional Principles
The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The Court cited Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato and Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan for the proposition that the nature of an action and the proper tribunal depend on the complaint’s averments irrespective of the plaintiff’s ultimate entitlement to relief. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional inquiry is governed by the complaint’s stated ultimate facts.
Supreme Court’s Application to Statutory Scheme and Facts
Applying those principles, the Supreme Court examined the allegations that the petitioner had violated the approved renovation plan and the Deed of Restrictions by constructing a structure exceeding the nine-meter limit. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that such allegations presented an intra-corporate dispute between a homeowners association and a member. The Court reviewed the Home Financing statutory scheme and executive issuances. It noted that Republic Act No. 580 created the Home Financing Commission; Executive Order No. 535 renamed it the Home Financing Corporation and conferred powers to register and regulate homeowners associations; and Executive Order No. 90 renamed it the HIGC and positioned it as an implementor of national shelter programs. The Cour
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146987)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- METRO PROPERTIES, INC. was the petitioner before the Court and the owner of two lots in Magallanes Village as alleged in the records.
- MAGALLANES VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. was the complainant before the HIGC and the respondent in the Supreme Court petition.
- Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) acted as the administrative body that received and initially adjudicated the complaint filed by the association.
- The petitioner sought review under Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure, 1997, from the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 32624.
Key Factual Allegations
- The petitioner purchased two lots at No. 244 EDSA corner Victoria Street, Magallanes Village, Makati City, covered by TCT Nos. 160184 and 160185.
- A Deed of Restrictions annotated on both titles required lot owners to be members of Magallanes Village Association, Inc., to seek approval of building plans from the Association, and to limit building height to nine meters.
- On April 2, 1993, the petitioner filed an application for major renovation/repair indicating a proposed roof with a maximum elevation of 1.50 meters from the roof deck, which the Association approved.
- The Association later inspected the property and found that the petitioner had increased the roof elevation to 3.705 meters and thereby allegedly caused the structure to exceed the nine-meter height limit in the Deed of Restrictions.
- The Association demanded cessation of construction, the petitioner refused, and the Association filed a complaint for injunction and damages with prayer for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction before the HIGC.
Procedural History
- The HIGC issued a TRO on September 17, 1993, and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on September 23, 1993.
- The petitioner answered on September 27, 1993, and moved for preliminary hearing alleging four affirmative defenses, including lack of HIGC jurisdiction and failure of the Association to attach a certification against forum shopping in violation of Supreme Court Circular 28-91.
- The HIGC ruled on October 7, 1993, that it had jurisdiction under Executive Order No. 535 and denied summary dismissal on the other defenses.
- The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals on November 18, 1993, which the Court of Appeals dismissed by Decision dated June 13, 2000.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated January 31, 2001, prompting the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
- Whether the HIGC acted with grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the dispute between the homeowners association and its member.
- Whether the petition was procedurally defective for failure to move for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals of the HIGC's resolution.
- Whether the complaint failed to state the Association's legal personality or rendered the Deed of Restrictions unenforceable due to non-annotation on the titles.