Case Summary (G.R. No. 235662)
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s consolidated en banc ruling in Sangalang et al. (December 22, 1988), which held that Jupiter Street had been reclassified as a high-density commercial zone, thereby impairing restrictive easements.
- Whether Presley could be held jointly liable for unpaid association dues when she merely leased and later purchased the property.
- Whether awarding attorney’s fees lacked both factual and legal foundation.
Sangalang Doctrine and Zoning Reclassification
In Sangalang et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Ayala Corporation (168 SCRA 634 [1988]), the Court ruled that Jupiter Street was reclassified by MMC Ordinance No. 81-01 into a C-3 (high-density commercial) zone. As a result, deed restrictions limiting use to residential purposes were subordinate to the legitimate exercise of police power. Presley contested this interpretation, but proffered no new ordinance, zoning certification, or jurisprudence to rebut the Sangalang holding. The Court refused to depart from its precedent in the absence of persuasive evidence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Deed Restrictions and Police Power
The Court reaffirmed that deed restrictions constitute valid contractual obligations enforceable between private parties, but they cannot obstruct the State’s exercise of police power to promote public welfare, health, and safety under the 1987 Constitution. Restrictive easements, while effective within Bel-Air subdivision, yield to zoning ordinances enacted in the public interest. Given the commercial development along Jupiter Street following Ordinance No. 81-01, singling out Presley’s pan de sal store for prohibition would undermine the overarching regulatory scheme.
Mootness of Association Dues and Attorney’s F
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235662)
Facts
- Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) filed a complaint for specific performance, damages, and preliminary injunction against Teofilo and Rosario Almendras (later substituted by Enedina Presley) for violating deed restrictions by operating a pan de sal store on a residential lot at 102 Jupiter Street, Bel-Air Village, Makati.
- The Almendrases, as registered owners, were bound by deed restrictions annotated on TCT No. 73616 requiring use solely for residential purposes.
- BAVA also sought unpaid association dues amounting to ₱3,803.55 and attorney’s fees of ₱4,500.00.
- BAVA’s notification to cease commercial operations went unheeded.
- Teofilo Almendras argued no written contract existed; he paid dues only in exchange for services and ceased payment when services were withdrawn.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of BAVA, enjoining commercial use, awarding unpaid dues with interest, and granting attorney’s fees.
- The Court of Appeals, in a November 28, 1988 decision, affirmed the RTC “in toto.”
- Enedina Presley filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, raising three issues.
- During pendency, Presley died and was substituted by her daughters, Olivia V.