G.R. No. 78447 August 17, 1989 RESTITUTO CALMA vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH

DIISION! "#$ PLEASANTILLE DEELOPMENT CORPORATION,respondents.
CORTES, J.:
Petitioner Restituto Calma, through this Petition for Review on certiorari, seeks to set aside the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. !"#$ dated %" &e'ruar( )#* declaring null and void an order of the +uman
Settlements Regulator( Commission ,hereinafter referred to as the C-../SS/-N0 dated 1! Septem'er )#" calling
for the issuance of a writ of e2ecution to enforce its decision of %% .a( )#3.
4he antecedents of this case are as follows5
Sometime in August )*3, the spouses Restituto and Pilar Calma purchased a lot in respondent Pleasantville
6evelopment Corporation7s ,hereinafter referred to as P89ASAN4:/8890 su'division in ;acolod Cit(, known as
Cit( +eights Phase //. /n )*", the( 'uilt a house on said lot and esta'lished residence therein. &a'ian and Nenita -ng
also purchased from P89ASAN4:/889 a lot fronting that of the Calma spouses sometime in the (ears )*)-)#!,
and constructed their own 'uildings where the( resided and conducted their 'usiness. -n %3 April )#, petitioner
Calma wrote the president of the Association of Residents of Cit( +eights, /nc. ,ARC+/0 complaining that the
compound of the -ngs was 'eing utili<ed as a lum'er (ard and that a =loathsome noise and nervous developing
sound= emanating therefrom distur'ed him and his famil( and caused them and their son to suffer nervous tension and
illness >Rollo, p. 3#?. 4he president of the association, in his repl(, stated that the association7s 'oard had referred the
matter to &a'ian -ng who had alread( taken immediate action on petitioner7s complaint, i.e., '( ordering the transfer
of the lum'er cutting machine and '( instructing his la'orers not to do an( carpentr( or foundr( works in the earl(
morning or afternoon and in the evening. &inding the measures taken '( the association and &a'ian -ng
unsatisfactor(, petitioner on * @une )# wrote and asked P89ASAN4:/889, as its dut( and o'ligation, to a'ate the
nuisance emanating from the compound of the -ng famil(. &ailing to get an answer, the Calma spouses filed a
complaint for damages against the -ng spouses and P89ASAN4:/889 on %# @ul( )# 'efore the Court of &irst
/nstance of Negros -ccidental docketed as Civil Case No. "1, alleging inter alia that were it not for
P89ASAN4:/8897s act of selling the lot to the -ngs and its failure to e2ercise its right to cause the demolition of the
alleged illegal constructions, the nuisance could not have e2isted and petitioner and his famil( would not have
sustained damage. 4hus, the complaint pra(ed for actual, moral and e2emplar( damages and attome(7s fees and
e2penses of litigation.
Petitioner also filed with the National +ousing Authorit( ,N+A0, on 1 August )#, a complaint for =:iolation of the
Provisions, Rules and Regulations of the Su'division and Condominium ;u(ers Protective 6ecree under Presidential
6ecree No. )3*,= claiming inter alia that were it not for the negligent acts of P89ASAN4:/889 in selling the parcel
of land to the spouses &a'ian and Nenita -ng and its refusal to e2ercise its right to cause the demolition of the
structures 'uilt '( the -ngs in violation of the contractual provision that the land shall 'e used onl( for residential
purposes, the illness of petitioner and as soon would not have happened. Petitioner pra(ed that P89ASAN4:/889 'e
ordered to a'ate the nuisance andAor demolish the offending structuresB to refund the amorti<ation pa(ments made on
petitioner7s lotB and to provide petitioner and his son with medication until their recover(. +e also pra(ed that
P89ASAN4:/889 'e penali<ed under Sec. 1) of P.6. No. )3* and that its license 'e revoked.
After the answer to the complaint was filed, the issues Coined and the respective position papers su'mitted, the
C-../SS/-N ,which had in the meantime taken over the powers of the N+A,0%rendered its decision in +SRC No. R9.-)%#-!3$*
on %% .a( )#3 dismissing the complaint of the petitioner for lack of merit, finding that P89ASAN4:/889 did not violate Sections ),'0, ) and %1 of P.6. No. )3*, 'ut
included a portion holding P89ASAN4:/889 responsible for the abatement of the alleged nuisance on the ground that it was part of its implied warrant( that its su'division
lots would 'e used solel( and primaril( for residential purpose.
4hus, the dispositive portion of the C-../SS/-N7s decision read5
/n view of the foregoing, the complaint for violation of Sections ),f0 and %1 of P.6. )3* is here'(
6/S./SS96. Respondent, however is hereby ordered to take appropriate measures for the
prevention and abatement of the activities/nuisance complained of so as to ensure complainant's
peaceful and pleasant living in the residential subdivision of respondent. In this regard, respondent
within 15 days from finality of this decision, shall submit a timetable of the action to be taken in
compliance with this directive and thereafter, a periodic status report of the progress of
compliance. >Rollo, p. 13B 9mphasis supplied.?
-n %* August )#", respondent C-../SS/-N issued the order granting the issuance of a writ of e2ecution of its
decision. Aggrieved, P89ASAN4:/889 filed a petition for prohi'ition with preliminar( inCunction with this Court
assailing the portion of the C-../SS/-N7s decision ordering it to =take appropriate measures for the prevention and
a'atement of the nuisance complained of,= and its directive reDuiring P89ASAN4:/889 to su'mit a timeta'le of the
action to 'e taken and a periodic status report of the progress of its compliance. P89ASAN4:/889 asserted that
since the C-../SS/-N had found that it did not violate an( provision of P.6. No. )3*, the C-../SS/-N
e2ceeded its Curisdiction when it ordered P89ASAN4:/889 to preventAa'ate the alleged nuisance complained of.
4he Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals which rendered Cudgment holding that the C-../SS/-N
=acted capriciousl( and in e2cess of its Curisdiction in imposing an o'ligation upon the petitioner after a'solving it of
the complaint filed against it= >Rollo, p. 1#?, the relevant portion of which decision is Duoted 'elow5
Ee find the petition impressed with merit. Presidential 6ecree No. )3* is a regulator( decree with
penal sanctions. Ehile it a'solved the petitioner of an( penal lia'ilit( '( dismissing the complaint
against it 'ecause it has not violated the pertinent provisions of Sections ),f0, ) and %1, P.6. )3*, (et
it imposed an o'ligation to perform something that was not proven in the complaintF-that is to a'ate
the occurrence of nuisance and to su'mit a timeta'le of action and a periodic report of the progress of
compliance. 4he order does not onl( appear over'earing andAor ar'itrar(, 'ut it is without an( 'asis
in fact. . . .
4hus, the Court of Appeals ruled5
E+9R9&-R9, in view of the foregoing, Ee find merit in the petition and the same is here'(
GRAN496, /t is here'( -R69R965
0 4hat order of respondent Commission dated %* August )#" for the issuance of a writ of e2ecution
is S94 AS/69 as null and voidB
%0 4hat should an( writ relative thereto 'een ,sic0 issued, the same is 6/SS-8:96 or
CANC98896B
10 4hat portion of the dispositive portion of the decision of respondent Commission of .a( %%, )#3,
ordering petitioner respondent to take appropriate measure for the prevention and a'atement of
activitiesAnuisance complained of in said case and the su'mission of timeta'le of action and periodic
report is S94 AS/69 as null and void.
No pronouncement as to costs.
S- -R69R96. >Rollo, pp. 1#-1).?
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision 'ut the Court of Appeals denied his motion. +ence, petitioner
'rought the instant petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals and
the reinstatement of the C-../SS/-N7S decision.
. 4he power to a'ate a nuisance, is not one of those enumerated under P.6. No. )3*, the Su'division
and Condominium ;u(ers Protective 6ecree. +owever, as pointed out '( the Solicitor General
'efore the Court of Appeals, the C-../SS/-N has 'een specificall( authori<ed '( 92ecutive -rder
No. "$# dated &e'ruar( *, )# ,otherwise known as the =Charter of the +uman Settlements
Regulator( Commission=0, to-
/ssue orders after conducting the appropriate investigation for the cessation or closure of an( use or
activit( and to issue orders to vacate or demolish an( 'uilding or structure that it determines to have
violated or failed to compl( with an( of the laws, presidential decrees, letter of instructions,
e2ecutive orders and other presidential issuances and directives 'eing implemented '( it, either on its
own motion or upon complaint of an( interested part(. >Sec, 3 ,p0.? %%
At this point the Court finds it unnecessar( to go into whether or not the C-../SS/-N7s order to
P89ASAN4:/889 to take measures for the prevention and a'atement of the nuisance complained of finds solid
support in this provision 'ecause, as found '( the Court of Appeals, the C-../SS/-N7s conclusion that the activities
'eing conducted and the structures in the propert( of the -ngs constituted a nuisance was not supported '( an(
evidence. 4he Solicitor General himself, in his comment filed in the Court of Appeals, admits that the decision of the
C-../SS/-N did not make an( finding of a nuisance >CA Rollo, p. )1?. Apparentl(, on the 'asis of position papers,
the C-../SS/-N assumed the e2istence of the nuisance, without receiving evidence on the matter, to support its
order for the prevention or a'atement of the alleged nuisance.
.oreover, the spouses -ng, were not even part( to the proceedings 'efore the C-../SS/-N which culminated in
the order for the prevention or a'atement of the alleged nuisance. 4he parties 'efore the C-../SS/-N were
petitioner and P89ASAN4:/889 onl(, although the persons who would 'e directl( affected '( a decision favora'le
to petitioner would 'e the -ng spouses. Certainl(, to declare their propert( or the activities 'eing conducted therein a
nuisance, and to order prevention and a'atement, without giving them an opportunit( to 'e heard would 'e in
violation of their 'asic right to due process.
4hus, we find in this case a complete disregard of the cardinal primar( rights in administrative proceedings, which had
'een horn'ook law since the leading case of ng !ibay v. "ourt of Industrial Relations, ") Phil. "13 ,)$!0.lGwphH.IJt
ConseDuentl(, the C-../SS/-N gravel( a'used its discretion amounting to lack or e2cess of Curisdiction when it
ordered P89ASAN4:/889 to =take appropriate measure for the preventionAa'atement of the nuisance complained
of.=
%. Petitioner insists that the -ng spouses were not indispensa'le parties in the case 'efore the
C-../SS/-N, hence no violation of due process was committed, 'ecause the action was primaril(
'ased on P89ASAN4:/8897s violation of its contractual and statutor( o'ligations to petitioner. +e
advances the view that P89ASAN4:/889 'reached its warrant( that the su'division shall 'e
e2clusivel( residential.
/n testing the validit( of this contention, the following provisions of the printed Contract to Sell on /nstallment >Anne2
=9= of the Petition? 'etween P89ASAN4:/889 and petitioner, which petitioner claims to 'e uniform for all lot-
'u(ers in the su'division ,'ut which was not esta'lished '( evidence in the proceedings 'efore the C-../SS/-N0,
are to 'e considered5
222 222 222
%. 4he :endee agrees to constitute as permanent lien on the propert( su'Cect-matter of this
agreement the following conditions and regulations5
a0 !hat the land shall be used e#clusively for commercial residential purposes$
222 222 222
%%. !hat the lot or lots sub%ect&matter of this contract shall be used e#clusively for residential
purposesand onl( one single famil( residential 'uilding will 'e constructed on each lot provided that
the :9N699 ma( construct a separate servant7s DuarterB
222 222 222
>Rollo, p. 33B 9mphasis supplied.?
4hese provisions of the contract do not uneDuivocall( e2press a warrant( that the su'division lots shall 'e used
e2clusivel( for residential purpose. -n the contrar(, the contract also e2pliciti( authori<es the use of the lots
forcommercial or residential purposes.
;ecause of the confusing language of items % and %% of the printed contract to sell, it is not possi'le to read from the
te2t alone a warrant( that the su'division shall 'e purel( residential. -ther evidence of such warrant(, including
representations, if an(, made '( P89ASAN4:/889 to petitioner, would 'e needed to esta'lish its enforcea'ilit(.
Petitioner also made reference to a =statutor(= implied warrant(, 'ut failed to cite the provision of law imposing the
warrant(. /t could not 'e the Civil Code, as the title on sales provides for onl( two classes of implied warranties5 in
case of eviction and against hidden defects of or encum'rances upon the thing sold >Arts. 3$*B 3$#-3"!B 3"-
3#?. Neither is an( warrant( imposed '( P.6. No. )3*.
As the part( suing on the 'asis of 'reach of warrant(, petitioner would have to come up with something 'etter than a
'are assertion that there was a 'reach. +e would have to prove first and foremost that there is indeed a warrant( that
had 'een 'reached, then esta'lish how the 'reach was committed.
1. A final word. 4here is no den(ing that in instituting the complaint for damages 'efore the trial
court and the complaint for violation of P.6. )3* 'efore the C-../SS/-N petitioner was motivated
'( the twin purposes of seeking the a'atement of the alleged nuisance and recovering damages for
the medical pro'lems purportedl( caused '( the nuisance. +e certainl( cannot 'e faulted for seeking
redress in all availa'le venues for the alleged violation of his famil( home7s tranDuilit(, for the
defense of one7s home and famil( is a natural instinct. +owever, redress for petitioner7s grievances
will have to 'e tempered '( the guiding hand of due process. 4hus, the nullification of the assailed
portion of the C-../SS/-N7s Cudgment 'ecomes inevita'le if we are to adhere to the 'asic tenets
of law. A wrong cannot 'e corrected '( another wrong.
+ence, no reversi'le error was committed '( the Court of Appeals when it nullified the assailed portion of the
C-../SS/-N7s decision, the order granting the writ of e2ecution, and an( writ of e2ecution issued pursuant thereto.
;ut all is not lost for petitioner and his famil(. As mentioned earlier, there is a pending civil case ,Civil Case No.
"1, Regional 4rial Court of Negros -ccidental0, instituted '( petitioner, where the alleged 'reach of warrant(,
coupled with P89ASAN4:/8897s inaction, is the primar( 'asis for the complaint for a'atement and damages. +ere
he can prove the e2istence of the warrant( and show how it was 'reached. /t is also in this case where the
determination of whether or not the activities conducted in the propert( of the -ng spouses or the structures thereat
constitute a nuisance will have to 'e made. Also herein is the proper forum where, following another theor(, it could
'e determined whether the Contract to Sell ,assuming that the contract 'etween P89ASAN4:/889 and the -ngs is
similar0 esta'lishes an enforcea'le o'ligation in favor of third parties, i.e., other lot-'u(ers in the su'division. /n said
proceeding the factual issues can 'e full( threshed out and the -ng spouses, the parties who shall 'e directl( affected
'( an( adverse Cudgment, shall 'e afforded the opportunit( to 'e heard as the( had 'een impleaded as defendants
therein together with P89ASAN4:/889.
E+9R9&-R9, there 'eing no cogent reasons to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, the same is here'(
A&&/R.96 and the petition 69N/96 for lack of merit. S- -R69R96.