Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On %ecember 11, 11, the -8& $earing O.cer ordered petitioner to pay =itonjua moral and
exemplary damages for maliciously including =itonjuaPs name in the list of delinBuent unit
o#ners and for impleading him as a respondent. On the other hand, the -8& $earing O.cer
ordered 5=- to pay the assessments and dues to petitioner.
1!
$o#ever, the $earing O.cer did
not determine the exact amount to be paid by 5=- because petitioner failed to lay do#n the
basis for computing the unpaid assessments and dues.
11
The dispositive portion of the decision
reads thus7
C:$8(8+O(8, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follo#s7
1. Ordering respondent 5=- to pay the legal assessmentsOdues due the complainant #ithin
thirty D;!E days from 'nality of this %ecision4 and
3. Ordering the complainant to pay respondent 5ntonio =itonjua the sum of T$(88
$G9%(8% T$OG-59% ,8-O- D,;!!,!!!.!!E as moral damages, +2+TK T$OG-59% ,8-O-
D,5!,!!!.!!E as exemplary damages, and T:O $G9%(8% T$OG-59% ,8-O-
D,3!!,!!!.!!E as and by #ay of attorneyPs fees.
-O O(%8(8%.C
13
9ot satis'ed #ith the -8& $earing O.cerPs decision, both parties 'led their respective appeals to
the -8& en banc.
1;
,etitioner assailed the a#ard of moral and exemplary damages as #ell as
attorneyPs fees in favor of =itonjua. On the other hand, 5=- appealed that portion of the decision
ordering it to pay to petitioner the assessments and dues.
2n a decision dated /uly ;!, 1;, the -8& en banc nulli'ed the a#ard of damages and attorneyPs
fees to =itonjua on the ground that the -8& had no jurisdiction over =itonjua. The -8& en
banc held that there is no intra-corporate relationship bet#een petitioner and =itonjua #ho is not
the registered o#ner of the Gnit and thus, not a member of petitioner. The -8& en banc stated
that petitioner could not invo>e the doctrine of piercing the veil of 5=-P corporate 'ction since
disregarding the corporate entity is a function of the regular courts.
+urthermore, the -8& en banc remanded the case to the $earing O.cer to determine the value
of the services petitioner failed to render to 5=- because of the latterPs non-use of the
&ondominium facilities. The -8& en bancruled that the value of these services could be deducted
from the unpaid assessments and dues that 5=- o#es petitioner.
Thus, the -8& en banc declared7
C:$8(8+O(8, in vie# of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby reversed insofar as it
a#ards moral and exemplary damages and attorneyPs fees to respondent =itonjua as the same is
null and void for lac> of jurisdiction of this &ommission over the said party.
1<
5s regards that portion of the appealed Order directing respondent 5=- to pay the legal
assessmentOdues to the complainant TT& #ithin thirty D;!E QdaysR from 'nality of the said
decision, the same is hereby modi'ed by remanding the case to the hearing o.cer
for "e2erm*!2*o! o: 23e v+0e o: 23e 1erv*;e1 <*233e+" by the complainant TT& from
respondent 5=- in order that the same may be deducted from the amount of legal assessments
and dues #hich the respondent corporation shall pay to the complainant.
-O O(%8(8%.C
15
D8mphasis suppliedE
,etitioner appealed the -8& en banc %ecision to the &ourt of 5ppeals contending grave error or
grave abuse of discretion by the -8& en banc.
The (uling of the &ourt of 5ppeals
The &ourt of 5ppeals dismissed petitionerPs appeal on both procedural and substantive grounds.
,rocedurally, the &ourt of 5ppeals found the petition defective for failure to contain a s#orn
certi'cation of non-forum shopping as reBuired by -ection 6 of 5dministrative &ircular 9o. 1-5
and -ection 3 of (evised &ircular 9o. 30-1.
On the merits, the &ourt of 5ppeals substantially a.rmed the decision of the -8& en banc that
there is no ground to pierce the veil of 5=-P corporate 'ction. The &ourt of 5ppeals held that
there is nothing in the records to sho# that 5=- is engaged in unla#ful, business or that =itonjua
is using 5=- to defraud third parties. The fact alone that 5=- is in arrears in paying its
assessments and dues does not ma>e 5=- or =itonjua guilty of fraud #hich #ould #arrant
piercing the corporate veil of 5=-. Thus, it #as improper for petitioner to post =itonjuaPs name
instead of 5=-P in the list of delinBuent unit o#ners since =itonjua is not a member of petitioner.
The &ourt of 5ppeals also sustained the claim of petitioner against 5=- for unpaid assessments
and dues but found that petitioner failed to substantiate by preponderance of evidence the basis
for computing the unpaid assessments and dues. Thus, the &ourt of 5ppeals remanded the case
to the -8& $earing O.cer for further reception of evidence and for determination of the exact
amount of 5=-P liability to petitioner. The &ourt of 5ppeals, ho#ever, directed the -8& $earing
O.cer to deduct from 5=-P unpaid assessments and dues the value of the services denied to 5=-
because of the latterPs non-use of the &ondominium facilities. 2n allo#ing the deduction, the
&ourt of 5ppeals declared the &ondominiumPs $ouse (ule 36.; as ultra vires. $ouse (ule 36.;,
#hich petitioner claims as its basis for denying the use of the &ondominium facilities to 5=-,
authori)es #ithholding of the use of the &ondominium facilities from delinBuent unit o#ners. The
&ourt of 5ppeals, ho#ever, ruled that petitioner is not expressly authori)ed by its 1aster %eed
and Ay-=a#s to prohibit delinBuent members from using the facilities of the &ondominium.
The &ourt of 5ppeals #ent further and declared the interest and penalty charges prescribed by
$ouse (ule 36.5
16
on delinBuent accounts as exorbitant or grossly excessive, although this #as
not raised as an issue. :hile in its complaint, petitioner sought to recover ,110,3;.3! as unpaid
assessments and dues, in its amended petition for revie#, petitioner sought ,<,53."5, more
than eight times the amount it originally claimed from 5=-.
1"
2n the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, the &ourt of 5ppeals declared7
C:$8(8+O(8, the instant petition is hereby %8928% and is accordingly %2-12--8%.C
10
$ence, this petition.
The 2ssues
2n its 1emorandum, petitioner assigns the follo#ing errors in the decision of the &ourt of
5ppeals7
1. C29 %2-12--29@ T$8 ,8T2T2O9 5==8@8%=K A8&5G-8 O+ ,8T2T2O98(P- +52=G(8 TO
&O1,=K :2T$ T$8 ,8(T2989T ,(O*2-2O9- O+ -G,(818 &OG(T &2(&G=5( 9O-. 1-5 59%
30-1 O9 T$8 &8(T2+2&5T2O9 5@529-T +O(G1 -$O,,29@4C
3. C29 O(%8(29@ 5 (8159% O+ T$8 &5-8 A5&I TO T$8 $85(29@ O++2&8( +O( T$8
(8&8,T2O9 O+ 8*2%89&8 +O( -8(*2&8- -G,,O-8%=K 9OT (89%8(8% AK ,8T2T2O98(4C
;. C29 %8&=5(29@ $OG-8 (G=8 9O. 36.; 5- G=T(5 *2(8-4C
<. C29 +29%29@ T$8 ,895=T28- 59% 29T8(8-T- ,(8-&(2A8% 29 $OG-8 (G=8 36.5
1
5-
8JO(A2T59T 59% @(O--=K 8J&8--2*84C
5. C29 (8+G-29@ TO (8&O@92M8 T$8 +5&T T$5T (8-,O9%89T =2TO9/G5 59% 9OT 5=- 2-
T$8 (85= O:98( O+ 5,5(T189T G92T <-54C and
6. C29 +52=29@ TO +29% T$5T T$8(8 2- O9 (8&O(% O*8(:$8=129@ 8*2%89&8 TO -$O:
T$8 A5-2- O+ T$8 %G8- 59% 5--8--189T- A829@ &O==8&T8% +(O1 T$8 ,(2*5T8
(8-,O9%89T-.C
3!
The (uling of the &ourt
The petition is partly meritorious.
5 perusal of the foregoing issues readily reveals that petitioner raises t#o aspects of the case for
consideration - the procedural aspect and the substantive aspect.
:e #ill discuss the procedural aspect 'rst.
Non+compliance with &upreme %ourt %ircular No. /+01 and 2evised %ircular No. 34+0/.
,etitioner submits that the &ourt of 5ppeals erred in dismissing its appeal for non-compliance
#ith -upreme &ourt &ircular 9o. 1-5 and (evised &ircular 9o. 30-1. ,etitioner asserts that
#hen it 'led its petition, both circulars #ere not yet in full force.
,etitioner 'led its petition for revie# #ith the &ourt of 5ppeals on 5ugust 10, 1; and its
amended petition on -eptember ;, 1;. Aoth the original and amended petitions #ere 'led
before the efectivity of (evised 5dministrative &ircular 9o. 1-5 on /une 1, 15. $o#ever,
contrary to petitionerPs claim, before the issuance of (evised 5dministrative &ircular 9o. 1-5,
there #as already an existing circular reBuiring a s#orn certi'cation of non-forum shopping from
a party 'ling a petition for revie# #ith the &ourt of 5ppeals./a567phi/.net
&ircular 9o. 30-1, #hich too> efect on /anuary 1, 13, reBuired a s#orn certi'cation of non-
forum shopping in cases 'led #ith the &ourt of 5ppeals and the -upreme &ourt. &ircular 9o. 30-
1 speci'cally provides for summary dismissal of petitions #hich do not contain a s#orn
certi'cation of non-forum shopping. -ections 3 and ; of &ircular 9o. 30-1 state7
C3. %ertifcation - The party must certify under oath that he has not commenced any other action
or proceeding involving the same issues in the -upreme &ourt, the &ourt of 5ppeals, or diferent
%ivisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of his >no#ledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending in the -upreme &ourt, the &ourt of 5ppeals, or diferent %ivisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. 2f there is any action pending, he must state the status
of the same./awphi/.n8t 2f he should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been 'led or is
pending before the -upreme &ourt, the &ourt of 5ppeals, or diferent %ivisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency, he should notify the court, tribunal or agency #ithin 've D5E days from
such notice.
;. Penalties -
a. 5ny violation of this &ircular shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the multiple
petition or complaint.
x x x.C
&learly, petitioner cannot claim that at the time of the 'ling of its petitions #ith the &ourt of
5ppeals, it #as not reBuired under any existing -upreme &ourt &ircular to include in its petitions
a s#orn certi'cation of non-forum shopping. &ircular 9o. 30-1 applies in the instant case, being
the &ircular in force at the time. ,etitioner cannot even feign ignorance of &ircular 9o. 30-1 as
its petitions #ere 'led more than one year after the &ircularPs efectivity. The rule against forum
shopping has long been established and &ircular 9o. 30-1 merely formali)ed the prohibition and
provided the appropriate penalties against violators.
31
The &ourt of 5ppeals did not err in dismissing the petition for this procedural lapse. $o#ever,
special circumstances or compelling reasons may justify relaxing the rule reBuiring certi'cation
on non-forum shopping.
33
Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate
justice. :hile the s#ift unclogging of court doc>ets is a laudable objective, granting substantial
justice is an even more urgent ideal.
3;
The certi'cate of non-forum shopping is a mandatory
reBuirement. 9onetheless, this reBuirement must not be interpreted too literally to defeat the
ends of justice.
3<
2n the instant case, the merits of petitionerPs case should be considered special circumstances or
compelling reasons that justify tempering the hard conseBuence of the procedural reBuirement
on non-forum shopping. 2n the interest of justice, #e reinstate the petition.
8ssentially, the substantive issues for resolution in the instant petition can be summari)ed into
four, as follo#s7
1. :hether petitioner can collect assessments and dues despite its denial to 5=- of the
use of the &ondominium facilities pursuant to $ouse (ule 36.;4
3. :hether 5=- can validly ofset against its unpaid assessments and dues the value of the
services #ithheld by petitioner4
;. :hether a remand of the case to the proper trial court is necessary to determine the
amounts involved4 and
<. :hether the penalties prescribed in $ouse (ule 36.3 are grossly excessive and
exorbitant.
9irst :ssue: Payment o) assessments and dues.
Petitioner;s authority to assess dues.
,etitioner #as organi)ed to hold title to the common areas of the &ondominium and to act as its
management body. The &ondominium 5ct, the la# governing condominiums, states that7
CTitle to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may
be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose Dhereinafter >no#n as the
Ccondominium corporationCE in #hich the holders of separate interests shall automatically be
members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of
their respective units in the common areas. xxxC
35
The &ondominium 5ct provides that the 1aster %eed may authori)e the condominium
corporation to collect Creasonable assessments to meet authori)ed expenditures.C
36
+or this
purpose, each unit o#ner Cmay be assessed separately for its share of such expenditures in
proportion Dunless other#ise providedE to its o#nerPs fractional interest in the common
areas.C
3"
5lso, -ection 3! of the &ondominium 5ct declares7
C-ection 3!. 5n assessment upon any condominium made in accordance with a duly
registered declaration of restrictions shall be an obligation of the owner thereof at the
Stime the assessment is made. xxxC D8mphasis suppliedE
,etitioner is expressly authori)ed by its 1aster %eed to impose reasonable assessments on its
members to maintain the common areas and facilities of the &ondominium. -ection <, ,art 22 of
petitionerPs 1aster %eed provides7
C-ection <. 5--8--189T-. +rom and after date 5yala 2nvestment H %evelopment &orporation
formally conveys the condominium project to the &ondominium &orporation, the owner of
each unit shall be proportionately liable for the common expenses of the
condominium project, which shall be assessed against each unit owner in the project
and paid to the Condominium Corporation as provided in ,art 2 -ection 0 DbE hereof at such
times and in such manner as shall be provided in the Ay-=a#s of the &ondominium &orporation,
a.E Regular assessments for such amounts as shall be necessary to meet the
operating expenses of the Condominium Corporation as #ell as such amounts,
determined in accordance #ith the provisions of the Ay-=a#s, to be made for the purpose
of creating and maintaining a special fund for capital expenditures on the common areas
of the project4 including the cost of extraordinary repairs, reconstruction or restoration
necessitated by damage, depreciation, obsolescence, expropriation or condemnation of
the common areas or part thereof, as #ell as the cost of improvements or additions
thereto authori)ed in accordance #ith the provisions of the Ay-=a#s4
b.E xxx
c.E There may be assessed against the unit o#ners, in the manner prescribed herein or in
the Ay-=a#s of the &ondominium &orporation, such other assessments as are not
specifcally provided for herein
d.E The amount of any such assessment, plus interest penalties, attorneyPs fees and other
charges incurred for the collection of such assessment, shall constitute a lien upon the unit
and on the appurtenant interest of the unit o#ner in the &ondominium &orporation. -uch
lien shall be constituted in the manner provided in the Ay-=a#s of the &ondominium
&orporation. The foreclosure, transfer of conveyance, as #ell as redemption of the unit
shall include the unit o#nerPs appurtenant interest in the &ondominium &orporation. The
&ondominium &orporation shall have the po#er to bid at the foreclosure sale.C
30
Thus, petitionerPs right to collect assessments and dues from its members and the corollary
obligation of its members to pay are beyond dispute.
There is also no Buestion that 5=- is a member of petitioner considering that 5=- is the
registered o#ner of the Gnit. Gnder the automatic exclusive membership clause in the 1aster
%eed,
3
5=- became a regular member of petitioner upon its acBuisition of a unit in the
&ondominium.
5s a member of petitioner, 5=- assumed the compulsory obligation to share in the common
expenses of the &ondominium. This compulsory obligation is further emphasi)ed in -ection 0,
paragraph c, ,art 2 of the 1aster %eed, to #it7
C8ach member of the &ondominium &orporation shall share in the common expenses of the
condominium project in the same sharing or percentage stated xxxC
;!
D8mphasis suppliedE
Gndoubtedly, as a member of petitioner, 5=- is legally bound to pay petitioner assessments and
dues =O maintain the common areas and facilities of the &ondominium. 5=-P obligation arises
from both the la# and its contract #ith the &ondominium developer and other unit o#ners.
,etitionerPs 1aster %eed provides that a member of the &ondominium corporation shall share in
the common expenses of the condominium project.
;1
This obligation does not depend on the use
or non-use by the member of the common areas and facilities of the &ondominium. :hether or
not a member uses the common areas or facilities, these areas and facilities #ill have to be
maintained. 8xpenditures must be made to maintain the common areas and facilities #hether a
member uses them freBuently, infreBuently or never at all.
5=- asserts that the denial by petitioner to 5=- and =itonjua of the use of the &ondominium
facilities deprived petitioner of any right to demand from 5=- payment of any condominium
assessments and dues. 5=- contends that the right to demand payment of assessments and
dues carries #ith it the correlative obligation to allo# the use of the &ondominium facilities. 5=-
is correct if it had not defaulted on its assessment and dues before the denial of the use of the
facilities. $o#ever, the records clearly sho# that petitioner denied 5=- and =itonjua the use of
the facilities only a)ter 5=- had defaulted on its obligation to pay the assessments and dues. The
denial of the use of the facilities #as the sanction for the prior default incurred by 5=-.
2n essence, #hat 5=- #ants is to use its o#n prior non-payment as a justi'cation for its future
non-payment of its assessments and dues. -tated another #ay, 5=- advances the argument that
a contracting party #ho is guilty of 'rst breaching his obligation is excused from such breach if
the other party retaliates by refusing to comply #ith his o#n obligation.
This obviously is not the la#. 2n reciprocal obligations, #hen one partyP ful'lls his obligation, and
the other does not, delay by the other begins. 1oreover, #hen one party does not comply #ith
his obligation, the other party does not incur delay if he does not perform his o#n reciprocal
obligation because of the 'rst partyPs non-compliance. This is embodied in 5rticle 116 of the
&ivil &ode, the relevant provision of #hich reads7
C2n reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not comply or is not
ready to comply in a proper manner #ith #hat is incumbent upon him. +rom the moment one of
the parties ful'lls his obligation, delay by the other begins.C
Thus, before 5=- incurred its arrearages, petitioner allo#ed 5=- to use the facilities. $o#ever,
5=- subseBuently defaulted and thus incurred delay. 2t #as only then that petitioner disallo#ed
5=- and =itonjua from using the facilities. &learly, petitionerPs denial to 5=- of the &ondominium
facilities, after 5=- had defaulted, does not constitute a valid ground on the part of 5=- to refuse
paying its assessments and dues.
<alidity o) =ouse 2ule 3>.?.
,etitionerPs $ouse (ules and (egulations DC$ouse (ulesC for brevityE expressly authori)e denial of
the use of condominium facilities to delinBuent members. -peci'cally, $ouse (ule 36.; provides
that7
C36. 5--8--189T-7
x x x
36.; 9ames of unit o#ners #ith delinBuent accounts #ho fail to pay t#o consecutive Buarters
shall be posted in the bulletin board. !nit owners with delin"uent accounts, their tenants,
guests#visitors and relatives shall not be allowed the use of all facilities of the
condominium such as the swimming pool, gym, social hall, etc.$D8mphasis suppliedE
The issue on the validity of $ouse (ule 36.; #as raised for the 'rst time on appeal. 2t is settled
that an issue not raised during trial could not be raised for the 'rst time on appeal as to do so
#ould be ofensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.
;3
9onetheless, the
&ourt of 5ppeals opted to address this issue.
,etitioner justi'es $ouse (ule 36.; by invo>ing -ection ;6, paragraph 11 of the &orporation &ode
#hich grants every corporation the po#er Cto exercise such po#ers as may be essential or
necessary to carry out its purpose or purposes as stated in its 5rticles of 2ncorporation.C
,etitioner #as organi)ed for the main purpose of holding title to and managing the common
areas of the &ondominium. ,etitioner claims that there is here implied the po#er to enact such
measures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the 5rticles of 2ncorporation, Ay-
=a#s and 1aster %eed to deal #ith delinBuent members. This, asserts petitioner, includes the
po#er to enact $ouse (ule 36.; to protect and safeguard the interests not only of petitioner but
also of its members.
+or their part, 5=- and =itonjua assail the validity of $ouse (ule 36.; alleging that it is ultra
vires. 5=- and =itonjua maintain that neither the 1aster %eed nor the Ay-=a#s of petitioner
expressly authori)es petitioner to prohibit delinBuent members from using the &ondominium
facilities. Aeing ultra vires" $ouse (ule 36.; binds no one. 8ven assuming that $ouse (ule 36.;
is intra vires" the same is iniBuitous, unconscionable, and contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy. Thus, 5=- claims it can validly deduct the value of the services #ithheld from the
assessments and dues since it #as barred from using the &ondominium facilities for #hich the
assessments and dues #ere being collected.
The &ourt of 5ppeals sustained respondentsP argument and declared $ouse (ule 36.; ultra
vires on the ground that petitioner is not expressly authori)ed by its 1aster %eed or its Ay-=a#s
to promulgate $ouse (ule 36.;.
$ouse (ule 36.; clearly restricts delinBuent members from the use and enjoyment of the
&ondominium facilities. The Buestion is #hether petitioner can validly adopt such a sanction to
enforce the collection of &ondominium assessments and dues.
:e rule that $ouse (ule 36.; is valid.
-ection <5 of the &orporation &ode provides7
C-ec. <5. @ltra vires acts of corporations. - 9o corporation under this code shall possess or
exercise any corporate po#ers except those conferred by this &ode or by its articles of
incorporation and except such as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of the po#ers so
conferred.C
The term ultra vires refers to an act outside or beyond corporate po#ers, including those that
may ostensibly be #ithin such po#ers but are, by general or special la#s, prohibited or declared
illegal.
;;
The &orporation &ode de'nes an ultra vires act as one outside the po#ers conferred by
the &ode or by the 5rticles of 2ncorporation, or beyond #hat is necessary or incidental to the
exercise of the po#ers so conferred. 1oreover, special la#s governing certain classes of
corporations, li>e the &ondominium 5ct, also grant speci'c corporate po#ers to corporations
falling under such special la#s.
The &ondominium 5ct, petitionerPs Ay-=a#s and the 1aster %eed expressly empo#er petitioner
to promulgate $ouse (ule 36.;. -ection of the &ondominium 5ct provides7
C-ection . The o#ner of a project shall, prior to the conveyance of any condominium therein,
register a declaration of restrictions relating to such project, #hich restrictions xxx shall inure to
and bind all condominium o#ners in the project. xxx The (egister of %eeds shall enter and
annotate the declaration of restrictions upon the certi'cate of title covering the land included
#ithin the project, if the land is patented or registered under the =and (egistration or &adastral
acts.
xxx
-uch declaration of restrictions, among other things, may also provide7
%a& 's to any management body(
). *or the powers thereof, +ncluding power to enforce the provisions of the
declaration of restrictions
x x x
;. ,rovisions for maintenance xxx and other services benefting the common
areas, xxxC D8mphasis suppliedE
The &ondominium 5ct clearly provides that the 1aster %eed may expressly empo#er the
management body, petitioner in the instant case, to enforce all provisions in the 1aster %eed
and %eclaration of (estrictions.
,ursuant to -ection DaE D1E and D;E of the &ondominium 5ct, the 1aster %eed expressly
authori)es petitioner to exercise all the po#ers granted to the management body by the
&ondominium 5ct, petitionerPs 5rticles of 2ncorporation and Ay-=a#s, the 1aster %eed, and the
&orporation &ode. -ection ;, ,art 22 of the 1aster %eed reads7
C-ection ;. 1595@8189T AO%K. - The &ondominium &orporation to be formed and organi)ed
pursuant to -ection " of ,art 2, above, shall constitute the management body of the project. 's
such management body, the powers of the Condominium Corporation shall be such as
are provided by the Condominium 'ct, by the 'rticles of +ncorporation and the ,y(
-aws of the Corporation, by this instrument and by the applicable provisions of the
Corporation Code as are not inconsistent with the Condominium 'ct. 5mong such
po#ers but not by #ay of limitation, it shall have the power to enforce the provisions
thereof in accordance with the ,y(-aws of the corporation.$ D8mphasis suppliedE
Thus, the 1aster %eed clearly empo#ers petitioner to enforce the provisions of the 1aster %eed
in accordance #ith petitionerPs Ay-=a#s.
,etitionerPs Ay-=a#s expressly authori)e petitionerPs Aoard of %irectors to promulgate rules and
regulations on the use and enjoyment of the common areas. Thus, paragraph 3, -ection 3 of
petitionerPs Ay-=a#s states7
C:ithout limiting the general nature of the foregoing po#ers, the Aoard of %irectors shall have
the po#er to enforce the limitations, restrictions, and conditions contained in the 1aster %eed
and %eclaration of (estrictions of the project= promulgate rules and regulations concerning
the use, enjoyment and occupancy of the units, common areas and other properties in
the condominium project, to ma>e and collect assessments against members as unit o#ners
to defray the costs and expenses of the condominium project and the corporation and to secure
by legal means the observance of the provisions of the &ondominium 5ct, the 1aster %eed, the
5rticles of 2ncorporation, these Ay-=a#s, and the rules and regulations promulgated by it in
accordance here#ith. The members of the corporation bind themselves to comply faithfully #ith
all these provisions.C
;<
D8mphasis suppliedE
8vidently, the &ondominium 5ct, the 1aster %eed and petitionerPs Ay-=a#s grant petitioner the
express po#er to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the use, enjoyment and
occupancy of the common areas.
1oreover, $ouse (ule 36.;, #hich prohibits delinBuent members from using the common areas,
is necessary to ensure maintenance of the common areas. ,etitionerPs purpose in enacting
$ouse (ule 36.; is to enforce efectively the provisions of the 1aster %eed. $ouse (ule 36.; is
#ell #ithin the po#ers of petitioner to adopt as the same is reasonably necessary to attain the
purpose for #hich both petitioner and the &ondominium project #ere created. Thus, -ection " of
the 1aster %eed declares7
C-ection ". &O9%O1292G1 &O(,O(5T2O9. - 5 corporation to be >no#n as T$8 T:29 TO:8(-
&O9%O1292G1 Dhereinafter referred to as the C&ondominium &orporationCE, shall be formed and
organi)ed pursuant to the &ondominium 5ct and the &orporation &ode to hold title to all the
aforestated common areas of the condominium project including the land, to manage T$8 T:29
TO:8(- &O9%O1292G1 and to do such other things as may be necessary, incidental and
convenient to the accomplishment of said purposes xxxC
;5
D8mphasis suppliedE
,etitioner #ould be unable to carry out its main purpose of maintaining the &ondominium
common areas and facilities if members refuse to pay their dues and yet continue to use these
areas and facilities. To impose a temporary ban on the use of the common areas and facilities
until the assessments and dues in arrears are paid is a reasonable measure that petitioner may
underta>e to compel the prompt payment of assessments and dues.
&econd :ssue: A*settin$ the value o) services withheld a$ainst AL&; unpaid assessments and
dues.
AL&; claim )or reduction o) its assessments and dues because o) its non+use o) the %ondominium
)acilities.
:e rule that 5=- has no right to a reduction of its assessments and dues to the extent of its non-
use of the &ondominium facilities. 5=- also cannot ofset damages against its assessments and
dues because 5=- is not entitled to damages for alleged injury arising from its o#n violation of its
contract. -uch a breach of contract cannot be the source of rights or the basis of a cause of
action.
;6
To recogni)e the validity of such claim #ould be to legali)e 5=-P breach of its contract.
AL&; claim )or unrendered repair services barred by estoppel.
5=- also justi'es its non-payment of dues on the ground of the alleged failure of petitioner to
repair the defects in 5=-P Gnit. $o#ever, this claim for unrendered repairs #as never raised
before the -8& $earing O.cer or the -8&en banc. The issue on these alleged unrendered
repairs, #hich supposedly caused 5=-P Gnit to deteriorate, #as raised for the 'rst time on appeal.
The &ourt of 5ppeals did not pass upon the same.
9either in the proceedings in the -8& nor in the appellate court did 5=- present evidence to
substantiate its allegation that petitioner failed to render the repair services. 5lso, 5=- failed to
establish #hether it claimed for the costs of the repair because 5=- advanced these expenses, or
for the value of damages caused to the Gnit by the #ater lea>age.
5=- is therefore barred at this late stage to interpose this claim. I! .el Rosario v. ,onga"
;"
the
&ourt held7
C5s a rule, no Buestion #ill be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court belo#.
,oints of la#, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lo#er court need
not be, and ordinarily #ill not be, considered by a revie#ing court, as they cannot be raised for
the 'rst time at that late stage. Aasic considerations of due process impel this rule.C
5s this claim #as a separate cause of action #hich should have been raised in 5=-P 5ns#er #ith
&ounterclaim, 5=-P failure to raise this claim is deemed a #aiver of the claim.
Third :ssue: 2emand o) the case to the proper trial court.
Question o) )act.
The &ourt of 5ppeals ruled that there is a need to remand the case considering that there is no
su.cient evidence on record to establish the amount of petitionerPs claim against 5=- for unpaid
assessments and dues.
The Buestion of #hether petitionerPs claim of ,<,53."5 for unpaid assessments and dues
against 5=- is supported by su.cient evidence is a purely factual issue and inevitably reBuires
the #eighing of evidence. This &ourt is not a trier of facts, and it is not the function of this &ourt
to re-examine the evidence submitted by the parties.
;0
2n cases brought before this &ourt from
the &ourt of 5ppeals under (ule <5 of the (ules of &ourt, this &ourtPs jurisdiction is limited to
revie#ing errors of la# #hich must be distinctly set forth.
;
2n this mode of appeal, the 'ndings of
fact of the &ourt of 5ppeals and other courts of origin are conclusive.
<!
/urisprudence is settled that7
CDaEs a rule, the jurisdiction of this &ourt in cases brought to it from the &ourt of 5ppeals xxx is
limited to the revie# and revision of errors of la# allegedly committed by the appellate court, as
its 'ndings of fact are deemed conclusive. 5s such this &ourt is not duty-bound to analy)e and
#eigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings belo#.C
<1
This rule admits of several exceptions. This &ourt may revie# the 'ndings of fact of the &ourt of
5ppeals7
CDaE #here there is grave abuse of discretion4 DbE #hen the 'nding is grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures4 DcE #hen the inference made is manifestly mista>en,
absurd or impossible4 DdE #hen the judgment of the &ourt of 5ppeals #as based on a
misapprehension of facts4 DeE #hen the factual 'ndings are conFicting4 D+E #hen the &ourt of
5ppeals, in ma>ing its 'ndings, #ent beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to
the admissions of both appellant and appellee4 DgE #hen the &ourt of 5ppeals manifestly
overloo>ed certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and #hich, if properly considered,
#ould justify a diferent conclusion4 and, DhE #here the 'ndings of fact of the &ourt of 5ppeals are
contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions #ithout citation of speci'c evidence,
or #here the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or #here the
'ndings of fact of the &ourt of 5ppeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are
contradicted by the evidence on record.C
<3
$o#ever, none of these exceptions exists in the instant case.
The -8& $earing O.cer found that, #hile petitioner is entitled to collect the unpaid assessments
and dues from 5=-, petitioner has failed to establish clearly the basis for computing the correct
amount of the unpaid assessments and dues. 2ndeed, there is no evidence laying do#n the basis
of petitionerPs claim other than allegations of previous demands and statements of accounts.
:hether petitioner has su.ciently established its claim by preponderance of evidence reBuires
an examination of the probative #eight of the evidence presented by the parties. 8vidently, this
is a Buestion of fact the resolution of #hich is beyond the purvie# of the petition for revie#
#here only errors of la# may be raised. On the other hand, the decision of the &ourt of 5ppeals,
'nding insu.cient evidence on record, #as made under its po#er to revie# both Buestions of
fact and la#.
2emand to the proper trial court.
:hile #e sustain the ruling of the &ourt of 5ppeals, the case can no longer be remanded to the
-8& $earing O.cer. (epublic 5ct 9o. 0", #hich too> efect on 5ugust 0, 3!!!, transferred
-8&Ps jurisdiction over cases involving intra-corporate disputes to courts of general jurisdiction or
the appropriate regional trial courts. -ection 5.3 of (.5. 9o. 0" reads7
C5.3. The &ommissionPs jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under -ection 5 of ,residential
%ecree 9o. !3-5 is hereby transferred to the &ourts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
(egional Trial &ourt4 ,rovided, That the -upreme &ourt in the exercise of its authority may
designate the (egional Trial &ourt branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The
&ommission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for 'nal resolution #hich should be resolved #ithin one D1E year from the enactment of
this &ode. The &ommission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of
paymentsOrehabilitation cases 'led as of ;! /une 3!!! until 'nally disposed.C
Aased on the (esolution issued by this &ourt in 51 9o. !!-0-1!--&,
<;
the &ourt 5dministrator and
the -ecurities and 8xchange &ommission should cause the transfer of the records of -8&-5& 9os.
;"" and ;"0 to the proper regional trial court for further reception of evidence and computation
of the correct amount of assessments and dues that 5=- shall pay to petitioner.
9ourth :ssue: Penalties prescribed in =ouse 2ule 3>.3.
5=- and =itonjua did not Buestion before either the -8& or the &ourt of 5ppeals the validity of the
penalties prescribed in the &ondominiumPs $ouse (ule 36.3. 9evertheless, the &ourt of 5ppeals
ruled that $ouse (ule 36.3 prescribes grossly excessive penalties and interests. The resolution of
this issue is not necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of this case. 5t any rate,
#e 'nd the interest and penalties prescribed under $ouse (ule 36.3 reasonable considering the
premier location of the &ondominium at the heart of 1a>ati &ity. 2t is inevitable that 5=-P unpaid
assessments and dues #ould escalate because 5=-P delinBuency started since 106.
$ouse (ule 36.3 clearly provides for a 3<T interest and an 0T penalty, both running annually, on
the total amount due in case of failure to pay, to #it7
C36.3. =ate payment of accounts of members shall be charged an interest rate of 3<T per
annum. 2n addition, a penalty at the rate of 0T per annum shall be charged on delinBuent
accounts. The 3<T interest shall be imposed on unpaid accounts starting #ith the 31st day of
the Buarter until fully paid.C
To reiterate, the &ondominium 5ct expressly provides that the 1aster %eed may empo#er the
management body of the &ondominium Cto enforce the provisions of the declaration of
restrictions.C
<<
The 1aster %eed authori)es petitioner, as the management body, to enforce the
provisions of the 1aster %eed in accordance #ith petitionerPs Ay-=a#s. Thus, petitionerPs Aoard
of %irectors is authori)ed to determine the reasonableness of the penalties and interests to be
imposed against those #ho violate the 1aster %eed. ,etitioner has validly done this by adopting
the $ouse (ules.
The 1aster %eed binds 5=- since the 1aster %eed is annotated on the condominium certi'cate
of title of 5=-P Gnit. The 1aster %eed is 5=-P contract #ith all &ondominium members #ho are all
co-o#ners of the common areas and facilities of the &ondominium. &ontracts have the force of
la# bet#een the parties and are to be complied #ith in good faith.
<5
+rom the moment the
contract is perfected, the parties are bound to comply #ith #hat is expressly stipulated as #ell as
#ith #hat is reBuired by the nature of the obligation in >eeping #ith good faith, usage and the
la#.
<6
Thus, #hen 5=- purchased its Gnit from petitioner, 5=- #as bound by the terms and
conditions set forth in the contract, including the stipulations in the $ouse (ules of petitioner,
such as $ouse (ule 36.3.
2n sum, as a member of petitioner, 5=- is indisputably bound by the &ondominiumPs $ouse (ules
#hich are authori)ed by the Ay-=a#s, the 1aster %eed and the &ondominium 5ct.
Award o) attorney;s )ees.
The a#ard of attorneyPs fees as damages is the exception rather than the rule. The general rule
is that attorneyPs fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no
premium should be placed on the right to litigate.
<"
&ounselPs fees are not a#arded every time a
party prevails in a suit.
<0
5n a#ard of attorneyPs fees and expenses of litigation is proper under
the instances provided for in 5rticle 33!0 of the &ivil &ode, one of #hich is #here the defendant
acted in gross and evident bad faith. 2n this case, ho#ever, #e 'nd no cogent reason to a#ard
attorneyPs fees in the absence of sho#ing of gross and evident bad faith on the part of 5=- in
refusing to satisfy petitionerPs claim.
7.ERE%ORE, the petition is @(59T8% and the assailed %ecision of the &ourt of 5ppeals is -8T
5-2%8. 5=- 1anagement H %evelopment &orporation is ordered to pay T#in To#ers
&ondominium &orporation all overdue assessments and dues, including interest and penalties
from date of default, as shall be determined by the proper (egional Trial &ourt in accordance #ith
this %ecision. The proper (egional Trial &ourt shall complete the computation #ithin sixty D6!E
days from its receipt of this %ecision and the records of -8&-5& 9os. ;"" and ;"0. &osts of suit
against 5=- 1anagement H %evelopment &orporation.
&O ORDERED.
G.R. No. 128,,8 (r;3 28, 2//5
$INING RE&UENA, ALE-ANDRA GARAY, LORNA RE&UENA, ELEU$ERIO RE&UENA,
EU$I>UIA RO&ARIO !" UNI&I(A RE&UENA, ,etitioner,
vs.
.ON. COUR$ O% APPEAL&, 11
23
DI#I&ION !" -UANI$O 'ORRO(EO, &R., (espondents.
D E C I & I O N
$INGA, J.?
This is a (ule <5 ,etition for (evie# on %ertiorari of the Becision
1
of the &ourt of 5ppeals
a.rming that of the (egional Trial &ourt D(T&E of &ebu,
3
#hich in turn reversed that of the
1etropolitan Trial &ourt DmtcE of Talisay, &ebu.
;
The facts are as follo#s7
,rivate respondent, the late /uanito Aorromeo, -r.
<
Dhereinafter, respondentE, is the co-o#ner and
overseer of certain parcels of land located in ,ooc, Talisay, &ebu, designated as =ots 9os. 350"
and 353 of the Talisay-1anglanilla 8state. (espondent o#ns six-eighths D6O0E of =ot 9o. 350"
#hile the late spouses 2nocencio Aascon and Aasilisa 1aneja D-pouses AasconE o#n t#o-eights
D3O0E thereof. On the other hand, =ot 9o. 353 is o#ned in common by respondent and the heirs
of one 9icolas 1aneja. $o#ever, the proportion of their undivided shares #as not
determined a Cuo.
,rior to the institution of the present action, petitioners Tining (esuena, 5lejandra @aray, =orna
(esuena, 8leuterio (esuena, and Gnisima (esuena resided in the upper portion of =ot 9o. 350",
allegedly under the acBuiescence of the -pouses Aascon and their heir, 5ndres Aascon. On the
other hand, petitioner 8utiBuia (osario occupied a portion of =ot 9o. 353, allegedly #ith the
permission of the heirs of 9icolas 1aneja, one of the original co-o#ners of =ot 9o. 350".
(espondent claims that all petitioners have occupied portions of the subject property by virtue of
his o#n liberality.
(espondent developed portions of =ots 9os. 350" and 353 occupied by him into a resort >no#n
as the Aorromeo Aeach (esort. 2n his desire to expand and extend the facilities of the resort that
he established on the subject properties, respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the
property. ,etitioners, ho#ever, refused to vacate their homes.
On 16 +ebruary 1<, respondent 'led a %omplaint
5
for ejectment #ith the 1T& against the
petitioners. 5fter a summary proceeding, the 1T&, in a Becision
6
dated 1! October 1<, found
that =ots 9os. 350" and 353 #ere o#ned in common by respondent #ith other persons. The
1T& ruled that respondent did not have a preferential right of possession over the portions
occupied by petitioners, since =ots 9os. 350" and 353 #ere not yet partitioned nor the disputed
portions assigned to respondent as his determinate share. Thus, the 1T& held that respondent
had no right to evict petitioners therefrom. &onseBuently, respondentPs %omplaint #as
dismissed.
9otably, the 1T& held that respondent and the spouses Aascon #ere the o#ners in common of
=ot 9o. 350" and their respective shares had not yet been determined by partition as proven by
a testimony given by respondent in &ivil &ase 9o. (-1<6!!, vi!7
U. 5nd the participation there of 2nocencio Aascon is 3O0 of the said parcel of landV
5. Kes sir.
U. 5nd until the present that parcel of land is undividedV
5. 2t is not yet partitioned, but during the time of Aasilisa 1aneja #e had already made
some indications of the portions that #e came to occupy.
U. That is the parcel of land #here you have your beach resortV
5. Kes, sir4 and that #as our agreement, verbally, that #ith respect to the portion of the
land to#ards the sea-shore it #ill be my share and that portion of the land to#ards the
upper part #ill be theirs.C
"
On appeal, the (T& reversed the Becision of the 1T&. 2t held that 5rticle <0" of the &ivil &ode,
#hich allo#s any one of the co-o#ners to bring an action in ejectment, may successfully be
invo>ed by the respondent because, in a sense, a co-o#ner is the o#ner and possessor of the
#hole, and that the suit for ejectment is deemed to be instituted for the bene't of all co-
o#ners.
0
The (T& also ruled that assuming petitioners #ere authori)ed to occupy a portion of the
co-o#ned property, they could resume this occupation #hen the properties shall have been
partitioned and allocated to the ones #ho gave them permission to reside therein. 2t thus held7
:$8(8+O(8, judgment of the lo#er court is hereby reversed and the defendants are
hereby directed to vacate the premises in Buestion #ithout prejudice to their going bac> to
the land after partition shall have been efected by the coheirs andOor co-o#ners among
themselves but to the speci'c portion or portions adjudicated to the person or persons
#ho allegedly authori)ed them to occupy their portions by tolerance.
The &ourt of 5ppeals a.rmed the Becision of the (T&4 hence, this petition #hich involves the
follo#ing assignment of errors7
1!
1. That #ith grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, the honorable
eleventh division of the court of appeals erred in 9OT 5,,=K29@ andOor in 9OT %8&=5(29@
private respondent juanito borromeo estopped in 'ling this ejectment case against the
herein six D6E petitioners.
3. That #ith grave abuse of discretion, the honorable eleventh division of the court of
appeals erred in incorrectly applying the statute of frauds, considering that the verbal
agreement entered into by and bet#een spouses inocencio bascon and basilisa maneja on
the one hand and juanito borromeo on the other more than t#enty D3!E years ago today,
#as already an 8J8>8% &O9T(5&T.
;. That #ith grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction, the honorable
eleventh division of the court of appeals erred in ignoring outright article <; of the ne#
civil code of the philippines, considering that the six D6E petitioners are only 5--2@988-,
pure and simple, of co-o#ners spouses ignacio bascon and basilisa maneja andOor andres
bascon, the adopted son of the said spouses.
<. That granting arguendo that the herein six D6E petitioners have to be ejected, the
eleventh division of the court of appeals erred in 9OT remanding this case to the court of
origin for the reception of evidence for damages, pursuant to and in accordance #ith art.
5<6, ne# civil code.
The petition cannot prosper.
5t the outset it must be stated that petitioners ground their petition on respondentPs testimony in
&ivil &ase 9o. (-1<6!! that he had agreed #ith co-o#ner, Aasilisa 1aneja, on the portions they
each #ere to occupy in =ot 9o. 350" prior to the partition of the property. $o#ever, respondentPs
testimony and, conseBuently, the agreement alluded to therein pertains solely to =ot 9o. 350"W
#hich, admittedly, all of petitioners occupy, save for 8utiBuia (osario #ho occupies =ot 9o. 353.
9o argument #as presented in this petition as regards the latterPs claim. $aving no basis to
revie# 8utiBuia (osarioPs claim to be allo#ed to continue in her occupation of =ot 9o. 353, this
&ourt maintains the holding of the (T& on this matter, as a.rmed by the &ourt of 5ppeals, that
respondent has the right to eject petitioner 8utiBuia (osario from =ot 9o. 353.
:ith regard to the other 've D5E petitioners, the &ourt notes that their 'rst three assignments of
errors are interrelated and built on each other. ,etitioners allege that respondentPs testimony in
&ivil &ase 9o. (-1<6!!, expressing that the upper t#o-eighths D3O0E portion of =ot 9o. 350"
#ould be occupied by Aasilisa 1aneja, constituting as it does a #aiver of said portion, has
estopped respondent from claiming the portion. Aasilisa 1aneja and her husband allegedly relied
on this agreement #hen the spouses assigned the upper portion of =ot 9o. 350" to petitioners.
1oreover, petitioners claim that their occupation of the upper portion of =ot 9o. 350" had
consummated the verbal agreement bet#een respondent and Aasilisa 1aneja and brought
agreement beyond the purvie# of the -tatute of +rauds.
5 careful perusal of the foregoing issues reveals that petitioners assumed the follo#ing as proven
facts7 D1E respondent had indicated to Aasilisa 1aneja the portions they #ere to occupy in =ot 9o.
350"4 and D3E the -pouses Aascon assigned to petitioners their portions of =ot 9o. 350". Ay
claiming these as the bases for their assignment of errors, petitioners in essence are raising
Buestions of fact.
11
The issues raised by petitioners on the application of estoppel, statute of frauds, and the
assignment of properties o#ned in common in their favor, #hile ostensibly raising Buestions of
la#, invite this &ourt to rule on Buestions of fact. This runs counter to the settled rule that only
Buestions of la# may be raised in a petition for revie# before the &ourt and the same must be
distinctly set forth.
13
2t is not the function of this &ourt to #eigh ane# the evidence already passed upon by the &ourt
of 5ppeals for such evidence is deemed 'nal and conclusive and may not be revie#ed on appeal.
5 departure from the general rule may be #arranted, among others, #here the 'ndings of fact of
the &ourt of 5ppeals are contrary to the 'ndings and conclusions of the trial court, or #hen the
same is unsupported by the evidence on record.
1;
2n the instant case, the (T& and the &ourt of 5ppeals rendered judgment merely on Buestions of
la# as applied to the facts as determined by the 1T&. &onseBuently this &ourt must proceed on
the same set of facts #ithout assuming, as petitioners have done, the veracity of claims #hich
have been considered, but not accepted as facts, by the courts belo#.
@uided by the foregoing, this &ourt 'nds in this case that 'ltered of the muddle from petitionersP
assignment of errors, it is unmista>able that respondent has a right to eject the petitioners from
=ot 9o. 350".
5rticle <0" of the &ivil &ode, #hich provides simply that CQaRny one of the co-o#ners may bring
an action in ejectment,C is a categorical and an unBuali'ed authority in favor of respondent to
evict petitioners from the portions of =ot. 9o. 350".
This provision is a departure from Palarca v. Da$uisi,
1<
#hich held that an action for ejectment
must be brought by all the co-o#ners. Thus, a co-o#ner may bring an action to exercise and
protect the rights of all. :hen the action is brought by one co-o#ner for the bene't of all, a
favorable decision #ill bene't them4 but an adverse decision cannot prejudice their rights.
15
(espondentPs action for ejectment against petitioners is deemed to be instituted for the bene't
of all co-o#ners of the property
16
since petitioners #ere not able to prove that they are
authori)ed to occupy the same.
,etitionersP lac> of authority to occupy the properties, coupled #ith respondentPs right under
5rticle <0", clearly settles respondentPs prerogative to eject petitioners from =ot 9o. 350". Time
and again, this &ourt has ruled that persons #ho occupy the land of another at the latter?s
tolerance or permission, #ithout any contract bet#een them, are necessarily bound by an
implied promise that they #ill vacate the same upon demand, failing in #hich a summary action
for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.
1"
,etitioners pose the strange claim that respondent had estopped himself from 'ling an ejectment
case against petitioners by his aforeBuoted testimony in &ivil &ase 9o. (-1<6!!. -uch testimony
is irrelevant to the case at bar, as it does nothing to strengthen the claim of petitioners that they
had a right to occupy the properties. This testimony merely indicates that there might have been
an agreement bet#een the -pouses Aascon and Aorromeo as to #hich of them #ould occupy
#hat portion of =ot 9o. 350". Ket this averment hardly establishes a de'nitive partition, or
moreover, any right of petitioners to d#ell in any portion of =ot 9o. 350". Aesides, CQeRstoppel is
efective only as bet#een the parties thereto or their successors in interest4C thus, only the
spouses Aascon or their successors in interest may invo>e such Cestoppel.C 5 stranger to a
transaction is neither bound by, nor in a position to ta>e advantage of, an estoppel arising
therefrom.
10
+or the same reason, it is of no moment #hether indeed, as petitioners claim, there #as a verbal
contract bet#een Aasilisa 1aneja and Aorromeo #hen the latter indicated the portions they each
#ere to occupy in =ot 9o. 350". -uch verbal contract, assuming there #as one, does not detract
from the fact that the common o#nership over =ot 9o. 350" remained inchoate and undivided,
thus casting doubt and rendering purely speculative any claim that the -pouses Aascon
someho# had the capacity to assign or transmit determinate portions of the property to
petitioners.
Thus, in order that the petition may acBuire any #hif of merit, petitioners are obliged to
establish a legal basis for their continued occupancy of the properties. The mere tolerance of one
of the co-o#ners, assuming that there #as such, does not su.ce to establish such right.
Tolerance in itself does not bear any legal fruit, and it can easily be supplanted by a sudden
change of heart on the part of the o#ner. ,etitioners have not adduced any convincing evidence
that they have someho# become successors-in-interest of the -pouses Aascon, or any of the
o#ners of =ot 9o. 350".
2ndeed, there is no #riting presented to evidence any claim of o#nership or right to occupancy to
the subject properties. There is no lease contract that #ould vest on petitioners the right to stay
on the property. 5s discussed by the &ourt of 5ppeals,
1
5rticle 1;50 of the &ivil &ode provides
that acts #hich have for their object the creation, transmission, modi'cation or extinguishment
of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument. $o# then can this
&ourt accept the claim of petitioners that they have a right to stay on the subject properties,
absent any document #hich indubitably establishes such rightV 5ssuming that there #as any
verbal agreement bet#een petitioners and any of the o#ners of the subject lots, 5rticle 1;50
grants a coercive po#er to the parties by #hich they can reciprocally compel the documentation
of the agreement.
3!
Thus, the appellate court correctly appreciated the absence of any document or any occupancy
right of petitioners as a negation of their claim that they #ere allo#ed by the -pouses Aascon to
construct their houses thereon and to stay thereon until further notice. On this note, this &ourt
#ill no longer belabor petitionersP allegation that their occupation of =ot 9o. 350" is justi'ed
pursuant to the alleged but unproven permission of the -pouses Aascon.
5ll six D6E petitioners claim the right to be reimbursed Cnecessary expensesC for the cost of
constructing their houses in accordance #ith 5rticle 5<6 of the &ivil &ode.
31
2t is #ell-settled that
#hile the 5rticle allo#s full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises
until reimbursement is made, applies only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one #ho builds on
land #ith the belief that he is the o#ner thereof. *erily, persons #hose occupation of a realty is
by sheer tolerance of its o#ners are not possessors in good faith.
33
The lo#er courts have made a common factual 'nding that petitioners are occupying portions of
=ots 9o. 350" and 353 by mere tolerance. Thus, petitioners have no right to get reimbursed for
the expenses they incurred in erecting their houses thereon.
7.ERE%ORE, premises considered, the ,etition is %8928% and the Becision of the &ourt of
5ppeals 5++2(18%. &osts against petitioners.
&O ORDERED.
G.R. No. 148,66. (r;3 ,1, 2//5
LEONARDO ACA'AL !" RA(ON NICOLA&, ,etitioners,
vs.
#ILLANER ACA'AL, EDUARDO ACA'AL, &OLO(ON ACA'AL, GRACE ACA'AL, (EL'A
ACA'AL, E#ELYN ACA'AL, AR(IN ACA'AL, RA(IL ACA'AL, !" 'YRON
ACA'AL, (espondents.
% 8 & 2 - 2 O 9
CARPIO (ORALE&, ..7
Aefore this &ourt is a ,etition for (evie# on %ertiorari of the +ebruary 15, 3!!1 %ecision
1
of the
&ourt of 5ppeals reversing that of the (egional Trial &ourt D(T&E of %umaguete &ity, Aranch ;5.
3
2n dispute is the exact nature of the document
;
#hich respondent *illaner 5cabal D*illanerE
executed in favor of his godson-nephe#-petitioner =eonardo 5cabal D=eonardoE on 5pril 1, 1!.
*illanerPs parents, 5lejandro 5cabal and +elicidad Aalasabas, o#ned a parcel of land situated in
Aarrio Tanglad, 1anjuyod, 9egros Oriental, containing an area of 10.15 hectares more or less,
described in Tax %eclaration 9o. 15056.
<
Ay a %eed of 5bsolute -ale dated /uly 6, 1"1,
5
his
parents transferred for ,3,!!!.!! o#nership of the said land to him, #ho #as then married to
/ustiniana =ipajan.
6
-ometime after the foregoing transfer, it appears that *illaner became a #ido#er.
-ubseBuently, he executed on 5pril 1, 1! a deed
"
conveying the same property
0
in favor of
=eonardo.
*illaner #as later to claim that #hile the 5pril 1, 1! document he executed no# appears to
be a C%eed of 5bsolute -aleC purportedly #itnessed by a Aais &ity trial court cler> &armelo
&adalin and his #ife =acorte, #hat he signed #as a document captioned C=ease
&ontractC