Title
Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Case
G.R. No. 71169
Decision Date
Dec 22, 1988
Residential deed restrictions in Bel-Air Village challenged due to commercial zoning ordinances, Supreme Court upheld zoning changes, overriding private contractual obligations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71169)

Petitioner and Respondent Roles

Petitioners (lot owners and BAVA) seek enforcement of restrictive easements in deeds of sale originally imposed by Makati Development Corporation (now Ayala Corporation). Respondents include Ayala Corporation in G.R. No. 71169 and private lot owners in the other four cases, each accused of converting residential lots into commercial establishments without association consent.

Key Dates

– Deed restrictions effective January 15, 1957, with a 50-year term.
– Construction of Bel-Air Village and initial wall along Jupiter Street: 1950s–1966.
– Makati Zoning Ordinance No. 81: April 4, 1975.
– Metro Manila Commission Zoning Ordinance 81-01: March 14, 1981.
– Opening of Jupiter Street to public traffic: August 12, 1977.
– Trial court decision in G.R. No. 71169: 1982.
– Supreme Court decision: December 22, 1988 (under the 1987 Constitution).

Applicable Law

– Deed restrictions create private easements enforceable by BAVA, MDC/Ayala, or any lot owner (Civil Code, arts. 1157–1161).
– Validity and enforceability of restrictive covenants subject to overriding police power (1987 Constitution, art. 18[5], and Civil Code, art. 1306).
– Makati Municipal Ordinance No. 81 and MMC Ordinance 81-01 regulate zoning, classifying Bel-Air Village as residential and the adjacent block as commercial, with Jupiter Street as common boundary.

Deed Restrictions and Easements

All residential lots were sold subject to restrictions prohibiting non-residential use, subdivision, commercial or advertising signs, and requiring membership in BAVA. Easements for drainage and public utilities also applied. The restrictions could be amended or canceled by vote of association members.

Development of the Adjacent Commercial Block

MDC announced plans (May–September 1972) to subdivide and sell lots north of Jupiter Street, imposing deed restrictions and seeking special BAVA membership for commercial owners. Proposed restrictions included building setbacks, parking requirements, height limits, and traffic regulations allowing vehicular access via Jupiter Street. BAVA acknowledged these plans and later collected dues from commercial lot owners.

Removal of Perimeter Wall and Opening of Jupiter Street

Originally erected to control security when the commercial block was vacant, the perimeter wall along Jupiter Street was partly rebuilt after typhoon damage and later removed for road widening. In August 1977, municipal authorities forcibly opened gates and removed fences, allowing public vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Jupiter Street.

Trial and Court of Appeals Decisions

In G.R. No. 71169, the trial court found Ayala liable for breach of contract and tort, awarding plaintiffs substantial damages and ordering restoration of the wall. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing for lack of cause of action and holding that zoning ordinances had rendered Jupiter Street open to both residential and commercial uses. In the companion cases, trial courts enforced restrictions against private respondents, but the Court of Appeals reversed based on the same zoning measures.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Contractual Obligations and Boundaries

The Supreme Court held that Jupiter Street functioned as a common boundary, not exclusively for residential use, and that no contract or deed restriction had obligated Ayala to perpetually maintain a separating wall. Promises to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.