Republic of the Philippines
Office of the President
HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kalayaan Avenue Corner Mayanam Street, Diliman, Quezon City
HLURB CASE NO. REM-A-081105-0909
THIRD DIVISION
STA. MARIA VILLAGE II HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Complainant
-versus-
STA. MARIA VILLAGE SUBDIVISION,
MR. JAIME D. TINIO, in his capacity as
Administrator and authorized representative
of the Tinio Family, as owners and developers
of the Sta. Maria Village Subdivision, namely
Heirs of Nicolas J. Tinio. Heirs of Federico J.
Tinio, Heirs of Elisa Tinio Ganzon-MacDonald,
Heirs of Priscilla Tinio-Arroyo, Heirs of Ramon
J. Tinio, and Felicitas J. Tinio.
Respodents.
Before us is the appeal filed by the complainant Sta. Maria Village II Homeowners
Associaton, Inc. (Association)from the Decision of the HLURB-Regional Office III dated 22 August 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“Wherefore, above premises considered, this Board DISMISSES the instant complaint for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED”
Complainant Association filed this action against respondent subdivision owners and developers for specific performance and for violation of the provisions of PD 957 and PD 1216, Village II Subdivision located at Balibago, Angeles City. It was alleged that despite several demands, respondents failed to provide and/or act on the problems or matters brought before them. As a consequence thereof, this case was filed asking that this Board order
_________________________
Penned by FILURB Arbiter Pher Gedd B. de Vera.
Enumerate in No. 4 of the Complaint.
respondents to jointly and severally: a) demolish the store occupying the left shoulder of Sta. Maria Avenue at the corner of Mac shoulder of any construction or occupants; b) donate the open space formerly occupied by the Angeles City Kuliat Jaycees to the complainant association; c) turn over to the complainant association the other area also reserved as open space for Sta. Maria Village II located at the far end of the Sta. Maria Avenue; d) dredge and clean the clogged underground drainage for the entire subdivision; e) repair and/or concretize the short stretch of Priscilla Street loading to Salome Street; f) to replace the street gates at Jocelyn and Priscilla-Salome Streets; g) reconstruct to increase the height and to repair the damaged portion of the perimeter fence on the south east side of Regina Street; and h) pay to the complainant SMVA administrative the fine, actual damages, attorney’s fees, and cost of the suit.
Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since the subject open spaces including the road lots have already been donated to and accepted by the local government of Angeles City.
___________________________
Section 2 Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Sec.31. Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open spaces. The owner as developer of a subdivision shall provide adequate roads, alleys and sidewalks. Xxx xxx xxx
These areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and recreational use shall be non-alienable public lands, and non- buildable. The plans of the subdivision project shall include tree planting on such parts of the subdivision as may be designated by the Authority.
Upon their completion as certified to by the Authority, the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local governments to accept provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds may be donated to the Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of the city or municipality concerned. No portion of the parks and playgrounds donated thereafter shall be converted to any other purpose or purposes.
Defining “Open Space” In Residential Subdivisions and Amending Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 Requiring Subdivision Owners to Provide Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Space for Parks.
The Regional Office, on the basis of the provisions of Section 2 of PD 1216 dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It ruled that respondents, as the owners/developers of the
subject project, has the obligation and the right to donate the subject open spaces to Angeles City and not to the homeowners association; and that it is only when Angeles City has given its consent that the subject open spaces can be donated to the association.
Unsatisfied, the association appealed from the Regional Office’s decision arguing, among others, that the Regional Office erred:1) in dismissing the complaint for lack of merit when there are clear causes of action against the respondents; 2) in finding that the subject open spaces and road lots were already donated to the local government despite the lack of evidence to support it; 3) in not declaring that respondents had violated the provisions of PD 957 as amended by PD 1216 and its implementing rules and regulations; 4) in not ordering respondents to pay administrative fine, damages, attorney’s fees and costs and expenses of this suit; and the Regional Office violated Rule XIII of the HLURB Rules of Procedure when the assailed decision was signed by an arbiter other than that who conducted the hearing of this case.
We find no reversible error in the rulings of the Regional Office.
Section 2 of PD 1216 which amended Section 31 of PD 957 provides that upon completion as certified to by the Board, the roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer, respondents in this case, to the city or municipality and it shall be mandatory for the local government to accept, provided, however, that the parks and playgrounds may be donated to the homeowners association of the project with the consent of the city and municipality concerned. Under PD 1216, therefore, donation of the parks and playgrounds to the association can only be made with the consent of the local government unit should the developer opt to donate to the association. In the case at bar, the developer chose to donate the open space to the local government unit. Respondents had no obligation to donate the open space to the association, and in turn, the latter has no right to demand such donation. The option to whom the subject open spaces shall be donated was granted by the law to respondents.
Further, the open space covers by TCT No. 26024 has long been donated to Angeles City and an orphanage has already been built on a portion thereof. The Supreme Court in the case of City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals involving the subject open space has ruled that said donations to the City of Angeles can no longer be revoked and be returned to respondents. The same should remain with the City of Angeles as the law clearly intended such open spaces to be perpetually part of the public domain, non-alienable and permanently devoted to public use. The association’s claim that respondents should donate the subject open spaces to it as provided under the Compromise Agreement is untenable. It is settled that compromise agreements to be valid must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Consequently, any donation of the open space to the homeowners association, without the consent of the City of Angeles, would violate the provision of PD 957 and PD 1216.
In fine, we find no cogent reason to modify, much less to reverse, the rulings of the Regional Office
_______________________
261 SCRA 90.
Civil Case No. 6964, regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Angeles City, Compromise Agreement between Nicolas Tinio and the Angeles City Kuliat Jaycees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the decision of the HLURB-Regional Field Office No. III dated 22 August 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, JUL 30 2009
AUGUSTO B. SANTOS
Deputy Director-General, NEDA
Ex – Officio Commissioner
LINDA L. MALENAB-HORNILLA
Undersecretary, DOJ
Ex – Officio Commissioner
Contact