Title
United BF Homeowner's Association vs. BF Homes, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 124873
Decision Date
Jul 14, 1999
Homeowners' association (UBFHAI) disputes developer (BFHI) over subdivision administration; HIGC lacks jurisdiction, Supreme Court affirms dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124873)

Chronology of Events

In 1988, Atty. Florencio B. Orendain was appointed by the SEC to manage BFHI to undergo a ten-year rehabilitation plan. A tripartite agreement was established between the receiver and two major homeowners' associations, ultimately leading to the establishment of UBFHAI on May 18, 1989. The agreement encompassed various administrative and security arrangements, which BFHI later attempted to alter following the appointment of a new committee of receivers in 1994.

Jurisdictional Dispute

On April 7, 1995, after the new committee of receivers notified UBFHAI of changes regarding security management and administration, UBFHAI filed a petition for mandamus with the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) against BFHI. In response, BFHI filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, asserting that the HIGC lacked jurisdiction to hear UBFHAI's case. The appellate court subsequently ruled in favor of BFHI, which led to UBFHAI filing a petition for review on certiorari.

Legal Framework

The legal framework at the center of this dispute derives from Executive Order 535, which transferred administrative supervision over homeowners' associations from the SEC to the HIGC. According to Section 2 of this order and subsequent regulations, HIGC was granted jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving intra-corporate relations among homeowners and associations.

Controversy Over HIGC's Rules

A critical point in the case is whether HIGC's promulgation of its rules, specifically Section 1(b), Rule II of the "Revised Rules of Procedure in the Hearing of Homeowners' Disputes," was valid. This section outlines HIGC's jurisdiction, including disputes involving the general public or other entities, which BFHI contended exceeded HIGC's legislative authority.

Judicial Examination of HIGC's Authority

The Supreme Court concluded that the expanded jurisdiction claimed by HIGC was indeed beyond its authority as allocated by Congressional statute. The inclusion of the "general public or other entity" clause was found to be improper, deviating from the explicit limitations set forth in Presidential Decree 902-A. The court reaffirmed that administrative bodies must not exceed the bounds of their legislative authority when creating rules.

Conclusion on Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court determined that HIGC did not posses

...continue reading

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