Case Summary (G.R. No. 52361)
Factual Background
Sunset View Condominium Corporation owned and managed the common and limited common areas of the Sunset View Condominium Project at 2230 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, under a duly registered Amended Master Deed. Aguilar‑Bernares Realty had become assignee of a unit called “Solana” through an assignment by La Perla Commercial, Inc., which itself had acquired the unit on installment from Tower Builders, Inc. Lim Siu Leng had been assigned the unit called “Alegria” by a purchaser who had bought on installment from Tower Builders, Inc. Both private respondents had not yet fully paid the purchase price of their respective units when the corporation sought collection of unpaid assessments and insurance premiums.
Trial Court Proceedings — G.R. No. 52361
Sunset View Condominium Corporation filed Civil Case No. 7303‑P on June 22, 1979 for collection of assessments against Aguilar‑Bernares Realty. The respondent Judge granted a motion to dismiss on December 11, 1979, reasoning that the assignee was a “holder of a separate interest” under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4726, thereby making the dispute an intra‑corporate controversy within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Securities & Exchange Commission. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the corporation then filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Trial Court Proceedings — G.R. No. 52524 and Appeal
Sunset View Condominium Corporation filed Civil Case No. 14127 in the City Court of Pasay City to collect P6,168.06 from Lim Siu Leng. The City Court denied a motion to dismiss on August 13, 1979 and denied reconsideration on September 19, 1979. Lim Siu Leng appealed to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 40, Rules of Court, where the appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. 7530‑P. The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal and reversed the lower court in an order dated December 14, 1979, directing the parties to bring their controversy before the Securities & Exchange Commission; a motion for reconsideration was denied January 14, 1980. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issues Presented
The petitions presented identical legal questions: whether a purchaser of a condominium unit who had not fully paid the purchase price automatically became a shareholder of the condominium corporation under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4726, and whether the regular courts or the Securities & Exchange Commission had jurisdiction to entertain actions for collection of condominium assessments when the purchaser had not fully paid for the unit.
Parties' Contentions
The private respondents contended that every purchaser of a condominium unit, irrespective of full payment, was a “holder of a separate interest” under Section 2 of the Condominium Act, and thus a shareholder of the condominium corporation; accordingly, the controversy was intra‑corporate and within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Securities & Exchange Commission under Section 5(b) of P.D. No. 902‑A. Sunset View Condominium Corporation argued that under the Amended Master Deeds and the contracts of sale, shareholding in the condominium corporation and ownership of the unit were conveyed only upon full payment of the purchase price, so that purchasers who had not completed payment were not owners and thus not shareholders; consequently, the disputes were within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Ruling of the Supreme Court (Disposition)
The Court set aside the respondent Judge’s orders dated December 11, 1979 and January 4, 1980 in Civil Case No. 7303‑P (G.R. No. 52361) and ordered the judge to try the case on the merits. The Court also set aside the orders dated December 14, 1979 and January 14, 1980 in Civil Case No. 7530‑P (G.R. No. 52524) and remanded that case to the City Court of Pasay City for trial on the merits, with costs against the private respondents.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court held that the private respondents, having not fully paid the purchase price, were not owners of their units and therefore were not shareholders of the condominium corporation. The Court relied on the text of Republic Act No. 4726, particularly Section 5 which provided that transfer of a unit shall include shareholding “in a proper case,” and Section 10 which declared that membership in a condominium corporation “shall not be transferable separately from the condominium unit” and that when a stockholder ceased to own the unit he shall automatically cease to be a stockholder. The Court emphasized that the Act left to the recorded Amended Master Deed the determination of the exact nature and timing of the interest acquired by a purchaser, citing Section 4(d) of the Act. The Amended Master Deeds in these cases expressly provided that stockholding would be an appurtenance of the unit, that such shares could not be transferred separately, and that title to the unit and the appurtenant shares would pass to the purchaser only upon full payment, as reflected in the contracts of sale which conditioned conveyance of title and the shares upon full payment. From these provisions the Court reasoned that the statutory term “holder of a separate interest” must be read to mean the owner of a unit, because one cannot be a stockholder unless o
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 52361)
Parties and Posture
- Sunset View Condominium Corporation was the petitioner and management body holding title to all common and limited common areas of the Sunset View Condominium Project.
- The Hon. Jose C. Campos, Jr. was the respondent trial judge whose orders dismissing or directing dismissal of actions were assailed by the petitioner.
- Aguilar-Bernares Realty was the private respondent in G.R. No. 52361 and was assignee of the unit "Solana" through La Perla Commercial, Incorporated.
- Lim Siu Leng was the private respondent in G.R. No. 52524 and was assignee of the unit "Alegria" through Alfonso Uy.
- The two petitions were consolidated by this Court because they involved similar facts and identical legal questions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a condominium corporation organized under Republic Act No. 4726 and a duly registered Amended Master Deed governed the Sunset View Condominium Project.
- The private respondents had acquired contracts to buy specified units but had not fully paid the purchase prices of those units at the time of the disputes.
- The petitioner sued for collection of overdue assessments and insurance premiums amounting to P8,335.38 in Civil Case No. 7303-P and P6,168.06 as of March 31, 1979 in Civil Case No. 14127 respectively.
- The deeds of conveyance (Contracts to Buy and Sell) expressly provided that full and absolute title to the unit and the shares of stock pertaining thereto would be conveyed only upon full payment of the total purchase price.
Procedural History
- In G.R. No. 52361 the trial judge granted the private respondent's motion to dismiss on December 11, 1979 and denied reconsideration thereafter, prompting petition for certiorari.
- In G.R. No. 52524 the City Court denied the respondent's motion to dismiss on August 13, 1979 and denied reconsideration on September 19, 1979, whereupon the respondent appealed to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 40.
- The CFI dismissed the appeal and reversed the lower court on December 14, 1979 by directing the parties to ventilate their controversy with the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the CFI denied reconsideration on January 14, 1980.
- The petitioner filed certiorari petitions alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in both consolidated matters.
Issues
- Whether a purchaser of a condominium unit who has not fully paid the purchase price is automatically a stockholder of the condominium corporation under Republic Act No. 4726.
- Whether the regular courts