Title
Supreme Court
Teoville Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. Ferreira
Case
G.R. No. 140086
Decision Date
Jun 8, 2005
Dispute over Lot 98 in Parañaque: Teoville Homeowners contested REAM's re-subdivision and sale to Ferreira. HLURB, O.P., and courts upheld REAM's actions, citing procedural lapses and indefeasible Torrens Title.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140086)

Applicable Law

The applicable law includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Rules of Court, and various provisions from Presidential Decree No. 957, which pertains to subdivision and condominium projects.

Overview of Dispute

The controversy began with the deterioration of a centralized water system within Teoville Subdivision and subsequent ownership disputes over Lot 98. Initially owned by Villongco Realty Corporation, Lot 98 was sold to REAM Development Corporation, which later donated a water distribution system to the Teoville Homeowners Association. However, following issues regarding the water supply and ownership, the subdivision lot underwent alterations and a series of legal challenges ensued.

Legal Proceedings History

On August 4, 1993, Teoville filed a Verified Complaint against REAM and Ferreira before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The complaint sought ownership of Lot 98 and nullification of its subdivision into Lot 98-A and Lot 98-B, arguing that REAM could not legally sell the lot as it contained facilities intended for public use. Ferreira's motion to dismiss was disregarded by the HLURB Arbiter, leading to a ruling on July 10, 1994, which dismissed the complaint citing a lack of jurisdiction.

HLURB Board Findings

On May 21, 1996, the HLURB Board of Commissioners reversed the Arbiter's decision, ruling that the re-subdivision of Lot 98 was void due to the lot's characterization as open space and public use facility, governed by Presidential Decree No. 957. The Board concluded that the re-subdivision required prior approval from the HLURB.

Subsequent Developments

Ferreira's motions for reconsideration were denied, and Teoville raised the matter to the Office of the President, which ultimately dismissed Teoville's appeal on March 6, 1998. Following this resolution, Teoville sought relief from the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Rulings

In its resolution dated June 10, 1998, the Court of Appeals dismissed Teoville's petition primarily due to procedural deficiencies – specifically, the improper execution of the certification against forum shopping and the lack of supporting documents required by the Rules of Court.

Analysis of Procedural Issues

Teoville's argument concerning the authority of its counsel to sign the certification against forum shopping was rejected, aligning with legal precedent emphasizing the necessity for such certification to be executed by the party itself or a duly authorized representative. The absence of required documentation accompanying the petition was likewise identified as a fatal flaw.

Conclusion on Appeals and Relief

The Su

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.