G.R. No.

71169 December 22, 1988

SANGALANG v. IAC

SARMIENTO, J.:
Before the Court are five consolidated petitions,
1
docketed as G.R.
Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 71!, and !!1 hereof, in the nature of
appeals "#$ certiorari under Rule 4% of the Rules of Court& fro' five
decisions of the Court of (ppeals, den$in) specific perfor'ance and
da'a)es.
*he proceedin)s +ere co''enced at the first instance #$ ,ose
-an)alan), .oined #$ his +ife /ut)arda -an)alan), #oth residents of
No. 110 ,upiter -treet, 1akati, 1etro 1anila "G.R. No. 71169& to
enforce #$ specific perfor'ance restrictive ease'ent upon propert$,
specificall$ the Bel2 (ir 3illa)e su#division in 1akati, 1etro 1anila,
pursuant to stipulations e'#odied in the deeds of sale coverin) the
su#division, and for da'a)es. /ater, the -an)alan)s +ere .oined #$
4eli5 Gaston, a resident of No. 64 ,upiter -treet of the sa'e
'unicipalit$, and #$ 1r. and 1rs. ,ose and (licia Briones, #oth of No.
66 ,upiter -treet. 6endin) further proceedin)s, the Bel2(ir 3illa)e
(ssociation, 7nc. "B(3(&, an incorporated ho'eo+ners8 association,
entered its appearance as plaintiff2in2intervention.
B(3( itself had #rou)ht its o+n co'plaints, four in nu'#er, like+ise
for specific perfor'ance and da'a)es to enforce the sa'e 8deed
restrictions.8 "-ee G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 71!, and !!1.&
(N*9C9:9N*- 4(C*-
7. G.R. No. 71169
*he facts are stated in the decision appealed fro'. ;e <uote=
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
"1& Bel2(ir 3illa)e is located north of Buendia (venue
e5tension "no+ -en. Gil ,. 6u$at (ve.& across a stretch of
co''ercial #lock fro' Reposo -treet in the +est up to
>odiac -treet in the east, ;hen Bel2(ir 3illa)e +as
planned, this #lock #et+een Reposo and >odiac -treets
ad.oinin) Buendia (venue in front of the villa)e +as
desi)nated as a co''ercial #lock. "Copu$oc *-N, p. 10,
4e#. 1!, 19!&.
"!& Bel2(ir 3illa)e +as o+ned and developed into a
residential su#division in the 19%0s #$ 1akati
:evelop'ent Corporation "hereinafter referred to as
1:C&, +hich in 196 +as 'er)ed +ith appellant ($ala
Corporation.
"3& (ppellees2spouses -an)alan) reside at No. 11?
,upiter -treet #et+een 1akati (venue and Reposo
-treet@ appellees2spouses Gaston reside at No. 64 ,upiter
-treet #et+een 1akati (venue and >odiac -treet@
appellees2spouses Briones reside at No. 66 ,upiter -treet
also #et+een 1akati (venue and >odiac -treet@ +hile
appellee Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation, 7nc. "hereinafter
referred to as B(3(& is the ho'eo+ners8 association in
Bel2(ir 3illa)e +hich takes care of the sanitation, securit$,
traffic re)ulations and )eneral +elfare of the villa)e.
"4& *he lots +hich +ere ac<uired #$ appellees -an)alan)
and spouse Gaston and spouse and Briones and spouse
in 1960, 19%7 and 19%, respectivel$, +ere all sold #$
1:C su#.ect to certain conditions and ease'ents
contained in :eed Restrictions +hich for'ed a part of
each deed of sale. *he pertinent provisions in said :eed
Restrictions, +hich are co''on to all lot o+ners in Bel2
(ir 3illa)e, are as follo+s=
72B9/2(7R (--?C7(*7?N
*he o+ner of this lotAs or his successors in interest is
re<uired to #e and is auto'aticall$ a 'e'#er of the Bel2
(ir (ssociation and 'ust a#ide #$ such rules and
re)ulations laid do+n #$ the (ssociation in the interest of
the sanitation, securit$ and the )eneral +elfare of the
co''unit$.
*he association +ill also provide for and collect
assess'ents, +hich +ill constitute as a lien on the
propert$ .unior onl$ to liens of the )overn'ent for ta5es
and to voluntar$ 'ort)a)es for sufficient consideration
entered into in )ood faith.
772B-9 ?4 /?*-
-u#.ect to such a'end'ents and additional restrictions,
reservations, servitudes, etc., as the Bel2 (ir (ssociation
'a$ fro' ti'e to ti'e adopt and prescri#e, this lot is
su#.ect to the follo+in) restrictions=
a. *his lotAs shall not #e su#divided. Co+ever, three or
'ore lots 'a$ #e consolidated and su#divided into a
lesser nu'#er of lots provided that none of the resultin)
lots #e s'aller in area than the s'allest lot #efore the
consolidation and that the consolidation and su#division
plan #e dul$ approved #$ the )overnin) #od$ of the Bel2
(ir (ssociation.
#. *his lotAs shall onl$ #e used for residential purposes.
c. ?nl$ one sin)le fa'il$ house 'a$ #e constructed on a
sin)le lot, althou)h separate servants8 <uarters or )ara)e
'a$ #e #uilt.
d. Co''ercial or advertisin) si)ns shall not #e placed,
constructed, or erected on this lot. Na'e plates and
professional si)ns of ho'eo+ners are per'itted so lon)
as the$ do not e5ceed 0 5 40 centi'eters in siDe.
e. No cattle, pi)s, sheep, )oats, ducks, )eese, roosters or
ra##its shall #e 'aintained in the lot, e5cept that pets
'a$ #e 'aintained #ut 'ust #e controlled in accordance
+ith the rulin)s of the (ssociation. *he ter' Epets8
includes chickens not in co''ercial <uantities.
f. *he propert$ is su#.ect to an ease'ent of t+o "!&
'eters +ithin the lot and ad.acent to the rear and sides
thereof not frontin) a street for the purpose of draina)e,
se+a)e, +ater and other pu#lic facilities as 'a$ #e
necessar$ and desira#le@ and the o+ner, lessee or his
representative shall per'it access thereto #$ authoriDed
representatives of the Bel2(ir (ssociation or pu#lic utilit$
entities for the purposes for +hich the ease'ent is
created.
). *his lot shall not #e used for an$ i''oral or ille)al
trade or activit$.
h. *he o+ner andAor lessee of this lotAs shall at all ti'es
keep the )rass cut and tri''ed to reduce the fire haDard
of the propert$.
555 555 555
372*9R1 ?4 R9-*R7C*7?N-
*he fore)oin) restrictions shall re'ain in force for fift$
$ears fro' ,anuar$ 1%, 19%7, unless sooner cancelled in
its entiret$ #$ t+o thirds vote of 'e'#ers in )ood
standin) of the Bel2(ir (ssociation. Co+ever, the
(ssociation 'a$, fro' ti'e to ti'e, add ne+ ones, a'end
or a#olish particular restrictions or parts thereof #$
'a.orit$ rule.
377229N4?RC919N* ?4 R9-*R7C*7?N-
*he fore)oin) restrictions 'a$ #e en.oined andAor
enforced #$ court action #$ the Bel2(ir (ssociation, or #$
the 1akati :evelop'ent Corporation or its assi)ns, or #$
an$ re)istered o+ner of land +ithin the #oundaries of the
Bel2(ir -u#division "-u#2division plan 6-:249!!6 and /ot
72B, 6sd2474& or #$ an$ 'e'#er in )ood standin) of
the Bel2(ir association.E "95h. 1 2#@ 95h. !!, (nne5 EBE&.
"(ppellant8s Brief, pp. 42 6&
"%& ;hen 1:C sold the a#ove2'entioned lots to
appellees8 predecessors2in2interest, the +hole stretch of
the co''ercial #lock #et+een Buendia (venue and
,upiter -treet, fro' Reposo -treet in the +est to >odiac
-treet in the east, +as still undeveloped. (ccess,
therefore, to Bel2(ir 3illa)e +as opened to all kinds of
people and even ani'als. -o in 1966, althou)h it +as not
part of the ori)inal plan, 1:C constructed a fence or +all
on the co''ercial #lock alon) ,upiter -treet. 7n 1970, the
fence or +all +as partl$ destro$ed #$ t$phoon EFolin).E
*he destro$ed portions +ere su#se<uentl$ re#uilt #$ the
appellant. "Copu$oc *-N, pp. 31234, 4e#. 1!, 19!&.
;hen ,upiter -treet +as +idened in 197! #$ 3.% 'eters,
the fence or +all had to #e destro$ed. Bpon re<uest of
B(3(, the +all +as re#uilt inside the #oundar$ of the
co''ercial #lock. "Copu$oc *-N, pp. 4447, 4e#.
1!,19!&.
"6& ;hen the appellant finall$ decided to su#divide and
sell the lots in the co''ercial #lock #et+een Buendia and
,upiter, B(3( +rote the appellant on 1a$ 9, 197!,
re<uestin) for confir'ation on the use of the co''ercial
lots. *he appellant replied on 1a$ 16, 197!, infor'in)
B(3( of the restrictions intended to #e i'posed in the
sale and use of the lots. ('on) these restrictions are=
that the #uildin) shall have a set #ack of 19 'eters@ and
that +ith respect to vehicular traffic alon) Buendia
(venue, entrance onl$ +ill #e allo+ed, and alon) ,upiter
-treet and side streets, #oth entrance and e5it +ill #e
allo+ed.
"7& ?n ,une 30, 197!, appellant infor'ed B(3( that in a
fe+ 'onths it shall su#divide and sell the co''ercial lots
#orderin) the north side of Buendia (venue 95tension
fro' Reposo -treet up to >odiac -treet. (ppellant also
infor'ed B(3( that it had taken all precautions and +ill
i'pose upon the co''ercial lot o+ners deed restrictions
+hich +ill har'oniDe and #lend +ith the develop'ent and
+elfare of Bel2(ir 3illa)e. (ppellant further applied for
special 'e'#ership in B(3( of the co''ercial lot
o+ners. ( cop$ of the deed restrictions for the
co''ercial lots +as also enclosed. *he proposed deed
restrictions shall include the 19 'eter set #ack of
#uildin)s fro' ,upiter -treet, the re<uire'ent for parkin)
space +ithin the lot of one "1& parkin) slot for ever$
sevent$ five "7%& 'eters of office space in the #uildin)
and the li'itation of vehicular traffic alon) Buendia to
entrance onl$, #ut allo+in) #oth vehicular entrance and
vehicular e5it throu)h ,upiter -treet and an$ side street.
7n its letter of ,ul$ 10, 197!, B(3( ackno+led)ed the
a#ove letter of appellant and infor'ed the latter that the
application for special 'e'#ership of the co''ercial lot
o+ners in B(3( +ould #e su#'itted to B(3(8s #oard of
)overnors for decision.
"& ?n -epte'#er !%, 197!, appellant notified B(3( that,
after a careful stud$, it +as finall$ decided that the hei)ht
li'itation of #uildin)s on the co''ercial lots shall #e
increased fro' 1!.% 'eters to 1% 'eters. (ppellant
further infor'ed B(3( that ,upiter -treet shall #e
+idened #$ 3.% 'eters to i'prove traffic flo+ in said
street. B(3( did not repl$ to said letter, #ut on ,anuar$
!!, 1973, B(3( +rote a letter to the appellant infor'in)
the latter that the (ssociation had assessed the appellant,
as special 'e'#er of the association, the a'ount of
640,79%.00 "#ased on 1,%90 s<uare 'eters at 6.%0 per
s<uare 'eter& representin) the 'e'#ership dues to the
co''ercial lot o+ners for the $ear 1973, and re<uested
the appellant to re'it the a'ount +hich its #oard of
)overnors had alread$ included in its current #ud)et. 7n
repl$, appellant on ,anuar$ 31, 1973 infor'ed B(3( that
due to the +idenin) of ,upiter -treet, the area of the lots
+hich +ere accepted #$ the (ssociation as 'e'#ers +as
reduced to 76,7!6 s<uare 'eters. *hus, the
correspondin) dues at 6.%0 per s<uare 'eter should #e
reduced to 63,363.00. *his a'ount, therefore, +as
re'itted #$ the appellant to B(3(. -ince then, the latter
has #een collectin) 'e'#ership dues fro' the o+ners of
the co''ercial lots as special 'e'#ers of the
(ssociation. (s a 'atter of fact, the dues +ere increased
several ti'es. 7n 190, the co''ercial lot o+ners +ere
alread$ #ein) char)ed dues at the rate of 63.00 per
s<uare 'eter. ":o'in)o, *-N, p. 36, 1arch 19, 190&. (t
this rate, the total 'e'#ership dues of the co''ercial lot
o+ners a'ount to 6!30,17. 00 annuall$ #ased on the
total area of 76,7!6 s<uare 'eters of the co''ercial lots.
"9& 1eanti'e, on (pril 4, 197%, the 'unicipal council of
1akati enacted its ordinance No. 1, providin) for the
Donification of 1akati "95h. 1&. Bnder this ?rdinance,
Bel2(ir 3illa)e +as classified as a Class ( Residential
>one, +ith its #oundar$ in the south e5tendin) to the
center line of ,upiter -treet "95h. 12(&.
*hus, Chapter 777, (rticle 1, -ection 3.03, par. 4. of the
?rdinance provides=
4. Bel2(ir 3illa)e area, as #ounded on the N #$ 6olaris
and 1ercedes streets and on the N9 #$ 9strella -treet@
on the -9 #$ 9pifanio de los -antos (venue and on the
-; #$ the center line of ,upiter -treet. *hen #ounded on
the N #$ the a#andoned 1RR 6asi) /ine@ on the 9 #$
1akati (venue@ on the - #$ the center line of ,upiter
-treet and on the ; #$ the center line of Reposo -treet.E
"95h. 12(&
-i'ilarl$, the Buendia (venue 95tension area +as
classified as (d'inistrative ?ffice >one +ith its #oundar$
in the North2North 9ast 95tendin) also up to the center
line of ,upiter -treet "95h. 1#&.
*hus, Chapter 777, (rticle 7, -ection 3.0%, par. C. of the ?rdinance
provides=
C. *he Buendia (venue 95tension areas, as #ounded on
the N2N9 #$ the center line of ,upiter -treet, on the -9 #$
9pifanio de los -antos (venue@ on the -; #$ Buendia
(venue and on the N; #$ the center line of Reposo
-treet, then on the N9 #$ 1alu)a$ -treet@ on the -9 #$
Buendia (venue and on the ; #$ ($ala (venue
95tension.E "95h. 12B&
*he Residential >one and the (d'inistrative ?ffice >one,
therefore, have a co''on #oundar$ alon) the center line
of ,upiter -treet.
*he a#ove Donin) under ?rdinance No. 1 of 1akati +as
later follo+ed under the Co'prehensive >onin)
?rdinance for the National Capital Re)ion adopted #$ the
1etro 1anila Co''ission as ?rdinance 1 201 on 1arch
14, 191 "95h. 19&. Co+ever, under this ordinance, Bel2
(ir 3illa)e is si'pl$ #ounded in the -outh2-outheast #$
,upiter -treet2not an$'ore up to the center line of ,upiter
-treet "95h. B&. /ike+ise, the #lockdeep strip alon) the
north+est side of Buendia (venue 95tension fro'
Reposo to 9:-( +as classified as a Ci)h 7ntensit$
Co''ercial >one "95h. 192c&.
*hus, the >onin) :istrict Boundaries 21akati, in (nne5 B of the
?rdinance provides=
R272/o+ 7ntensit$ Residential
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4. Bel2(ir 1, 3, 4
Bounded on the North 22 ,.6. RiDal and ('apola -t.
-outh 2 Rock+ell
North+est 2 6. Bur)os
-outheast 2 ,upiter
-outh+est 2 9pifanio de los -antos (ve. "9:-(&
%. Bel2(ir !
Bounded on the North+est 2 ,.6. RiDal
-outh+est 2 1akati (venue
-outh 222 ,upiter
-outheast 22 6asi) /ine
9ast 2 -outh (venueE "95h. 192#&
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
C232Ci)h 7ntensit$ Co''ercial >one
!. ( #lock deep strip alon) the north+est side of Buendia
(ve. 95t. fro' Reposo to 9:-(.E "95h, 192c&
Bnder the a#ove Donin) classifications, ,upiter -treet,
therefore, is a co''on #oundar$ of Bel2(ir 3illa)e and
the co''ercial Done.
"10& 1ean+hile, in 197!, B(3( had installed )ates at
strate)ic locations across ,upiter -treet +hich +ere
'anned and operated #$ its o+n securit$ )uards +ho
+ere e'plo$ed to 'aintain, supervise and enforce traffic
re)ulations in the roads and streets of the villa)e.
"3illavicencio, *-N, pp, !!2!%, ?ct. 30, 190@ B(3(
6etition, par. 11, 95h. 17&.
*hen, on ,anuar$ 17, 1977, the ?ffice of the 1a$or of
1akati +rote B(3( directin) that, in the interest of pu#lic
+elfare and for the purpose of easin) traffic con)estion,
the follo+in) streets in Bel2(ir 3illa)e should #e opened
for pu#lic use=
('apola -treet 2 fro' 9strella -treet to 1ercedes -treet
('apola -treet 2.unction of 6al'a -treet )ate )oin) to ,.
3illena -treet
1ercedes -treet 22 fro' 9:-( to 7'elda (venue and
('apola .unction
>odiac -treet 2 fro' 1ercedes -treet to Buendia (venue
,upiter -treet 22 fro' >odiac -treet to Reposo -treet
connectin) 1etropolitan (venue to 6ason) *a'o and 3.
CruD 95tension intersection
Neptune -treet 2 fro' 1akati (venue to Reposo -treet
?r#it -treet 2 fro' 4. >o#el2Candelaria intersection to
,upiter -treet
6aseo de Ro5as 2 fro' 1ercedes -treet to Buendia
(venue "95h. 17, (nne5 (, B(3( 6etition&
?n 4e#ruar$ 10, 1977, B(3( +rote the 1a$or of 1akati,
e5pressin) the concern of the residents a#out the
openin) of the streets to the )eneral pu#lic, and
re<uestin) specificall$ the indefinite postpone'ent of the
plan to open ,upiter -treet to pu#lic vehicles. "95h. 17,
(nne5 B, B(3( 6etition&.
Co+ever, B(3( voluntaril$ opened to the pu#lic
('apola, 1ercedes, >odiac, Neptune and 6aseo de
Ro5as streets. "95h. 172(, (ns+er of 1akati par. 327&.
/ater, on ,une 17,1977, the Baran)a$ Captain of Bel2(ir
3illa)e +as advised #$ the ?ffice of the 1a$or that, in
accordance +ith the a)ree'ent entered into durin) the
'eetin) on ,anuar$ !, 1 977, the 1unicipal 9n)ineer
and the -tation Co''ander of the 1akati 6olice +ere
ordered to open for pu#lic use ,upiter -treet fro' 1akati
(venue to Reposo -treet. (ccordin)l$, he +as re<uested
to advise the villa)e residents of the necessit$ of the
openin) of the street in the interest of pu#lic +elfare.
"95h. 17, (nne5 9, B(3( 6etition&.
*hen, on ,une 10, 1977, the 1unicipal 9n)ineer of 1akati
in a letter addressed to B(3( advised the latter to open
for vehicular and pedestrian traffic the entire portion of
,upiter -treet fro' 1akati (venue to Reposo -treet "95h.
17, B(3( 6etition, par. 14&.
4inall$, on (u)ust 1!, 1977, the 'unicipal officials of
1akati concerned alle)edl$ opened, destro$ed and
re'oved the )ates constructedAlocated at the corner of
Reposo -treet and ,upiter -treet as +ell as the
)atesAfences locatedAconstructed at ,upiter -treet and
1akati (venue forci#l$, and then opened the entire len)th
of ,upiter -treet to pu#lic traffic. "95h. 17, B(3( 6etition,
pars. 16 and 17&.
"11& Before the )ates +ere2re'oved, there +as no
parkin) pro#le' or traffic pro#le' in ,upiter -treet,
#ecause ,upiter -treet +as not allo+ed to #e used #$ the
)eneral pu#lic "3illavicencio, *-N, pp. !42!%, ?ct. 30,
190&. Co+ever, +ith the openin) of >odiac -treet fro'
9strella -treet to ,upiter -treet and also the openin) to
the pu#lic of the entire len)th of ,upiter -treet, there +as
a tre'endous increase in the volu'e of traffic passin)
alon) ,upiter -treet co'in) fro' 9:-( to 9strella -treet,
then to >odiac -treet to ,upiter -treet, and alon) the
entire len)th of ,upiter -treet to its other end at Reposo
-treet. "3illavicencio, *-N, pp. 3023!, ?ct. 30, 190&.
7n the 'eanti'e, the purchasers of the co''ercial lots
#et+een ,upiter -treet and Buendia (venue e5tension
had started constructin) their respective #uildin)s in
19742197%. *he$ de'olished the portions of the fence or
+all standin) +ithin the #oundar$ of their lots. 1an$ of the
o+ners constructed their o+n fences or +alls in lieu of the
+all and the$ e'plo$ed their o+n securit$ )uards. "*-N,
p. 3, 4e#. !0,191@ *-N, pp. %32%4@ 7!274, 1arch
!0,191@ *-N, pp. %42%%, ,ul$ !3, 191&.
"1!& *hen, on ,anuar$ !7, 197, appellant donated the
entire ,upiter -treet fro' 1etropolitan (venue to >odiac
-treet to B(3( "95h. 7&2 Co+ever, even #efore 197, the
1akati 6olice and the securit$ force of B(3( +ere
alread$ the ones re)ulatin) the traffic alon) ,upiter -treet
after the )ates +ere opened in 1977. -ancianco *-N, pp.
!6230, ?ct. !,191&.
7n ?cto#er, 1979, the fence at the corner of ?r#it and
Neptune -treets +as opened and re'oved "B(3(
6etition, par. !!, 95h. 17&. *he openin) of the +hole
stretch of ?r#it -treet fro' ,.6. RiDal (venue up to
7'elda (venue and later to ,upiter -treet +as a)reed to
at the conference attended #$ the 6resident of B(3( in
the office of the -tation Co''ander of 1akati, su#.ect to
certain conditions, to +it=
*hat, 'aintenance of ?r#it -t. up to ,upiter -t. shall #e
shouldered #$ the 1unicipalit$ of 1akati.
*hat, street li)hts +ill #e installed and 'aintenance of the
sa'e alon) ?r#it -t. fro' ,.6. RiDal (ve. up to ,upiter -t.
shall #e undertaken #$ the 1unicipalit$.
*hat for the securit$ of the residents of -an 1i)uel 3illa)e
and Bel2(ir 3illa)e, as a result of the openin) of ?r#it
-treet, police outposts shall #e constructed #$ the
1unicipalit$ of 1akati to #e headed #$ personnel of
-tation No. 4, in close coordination +ith the -ecurit$
Guards of -an 1i)uel 3illa)e and Bel2(ir 3illa)e.E "C4.
95h. 3 to Counter2(ffidavit, of -tation Co''ander,
Ruperto (cle p. !%3, records&E "?rder, Civil Case No.
3494, 95h. 172c&.
"13& *hus, +ith the openin) of the entire len)th of ,upiter
-treet to pu#lic traffic, the different residential lots located
in the northern side of ,upiter -treet ceased to #e used
for purel$ residential purposes. *he$ #eca'e, for all
purposes, co''ercial in character.
"14& -u#se<uentl$, on ?cto#er !9, 1979, the plaintiffs2
appellees ,ose :. -an)alan) and /ut)arda :. -an)alan)
#rou)ht the present action for da'a)es a)ainst the
defendant2appellant ($ala Corporation predicated on #oth
#reach of contract and on tort or <uasi2delict (
supple'ental co'plaint +as later filed #$ said appellees
seekin) to au)'ent the reliefs pra$ed for in the ori)inal
co'plaint #ecause of alle)ed supervenin) events +hich
occurred durin) the trial of the case. Clai'in) to #e
si'ilarl$ situated as the plaintiffs2appellees, the spouses
4eli5 C. Gaston and :olores R. Gaston, ,ose 3. Briones
and (licia R. Briones, and the ho'eo+ners8 association
"B(3(& intervened in the case.
"1%& (fter trial on the 'erits, the then Court of 4irst
7nstance of RiDal, 6asi), 1etro 1anila, rendered a
decision in favor of the appellees the dispositive portion of
+hich is as follo+s=
;C9R94?R9, .ud)'ent is here#$ accordin)l$ rendered
as follo+s=
?N 6/(7N*744-8 C?16/(7N*=
:efendant is ordered to pa$ to the plaintiffs2spouses
-an)alan) the follo+in) da'a)es=
1. *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as actual and conse<uential
da'a)es@
!. *he su' of 6!,000,000.00 as 'oral da'a)es@
3. *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as e5e'plar$ da'a)es@
4. *he su' of 6100,000.00 as attorne$8s fees@ and
%. *he costs of suit.
?N 7N*9R39N?R- 49/7G and :?/?R9- G(-*?N8-
C?16/(7N*=
:efendant is ordered to pa$ to the spouses 4eli5 and
:olores Gaston, the follo+in) da'a)es=
1 . *he su' of 6400,000.00 as conse<uential da'a)es@
! *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as 'oral da'a)es@
3 *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as e5e'plar$ da'a)es=
4 *he su' of 6%0,000.00 as attorne$8s fees@ and
% *he costs of suit.
?N 7N*9R39N?R- ,?-9 and (/7C7( BR7?N9-8
C?16/(7N*=
:efendant is ordered to pa$ to the spouses ,ose and
(licia Briones, the follo+in) da'a)es=
1 . *he su' of 6400,000.00 as conse<uential da'a)es@
! *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as 'oral da'a)es@
3 *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as e5e'plar$ da'a)es@
4 *he su' of 6%0,000.00 as attorne$8s fees@ and
% *he costs of suit.
?N 7N*9R39N?R B(3(8- C?16/(7N*=
:efendant is ordered to pa$ intervenor B(3(, the
follo+in) da'a)es=
1. *he su' of 6400,000.00 as conse<uential da'a)es@
!. *he su' of 6%00,000.00 as e5e'plar$ da'a)es@
3. *he su' of 6%0,000.00 as attorne$8s fees@ and
4. *he costs of suit.
*he a#ove da'a)es a+arded to the plaintiffs and
intervenors shall #ear le)al interest fro' the filin) of the
co'plaint.
:efendant is further ordered to restoreAreconstruct the
peri'eter +all at its ori)inal position in 1966 fro' Reposo
-treet in the +est to >odiac -treet in the east, at its o+n
e5pense, +ithin -7G "6& 1?N*C- fro' finalit$ of
.ud)'ent.
-? ?R:9R9:.
"Record on (ppeal, pp. 4002401&
2
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
?n appeal, the Court of (ppeals
3
rendered a reversal,
and disposed as follo+s=
(CC?R:7NG/F, findin) the decision appealed fro' as
not supported #$ the facts and the la+ on the 'atter, the
sa'e is here#$ -9* (-7:9 and another one entered
dis'issin) the case for lack of a cause of action. ;ithout
pronounce'ent as to costs.
-? ?R:9R9:.
4

77. G.R. No. 74376
*his petition +as si'ilarl$ #rou)ht #$ B(3( to enforce the aforesaid
restrictions stipulated in the deeds of sale e5ecuted #$ the ($ala
Corporation. *he petitioner ori)inall$ #rou)ht the co'plaint in the
Re)ional *rial Court of 1akati,
5
principall$ for specific perfor'ance,
plaintiff Hno+, petitionerI alle)in) that the defendant Hno+, private
respondentI *enorio allo+ed defendant H*enorio8s co2private
respondentI GonDalves to occup$ and convert the house at %0 ,upiter
-treet, Bel2(ir 3illa)e, 1akati, 1etro 1anila, into a restaurant, +ithout
its kno+led)e and consent, and in violation of the deed restrictions
+hich provide that the lot and #uildin) thereon 'ust #e used onl$ for
residential purposes upon +hich the pra$ed for 'ain relief +as for
8the defendants to per'anentl$ refrain fro' usin) the pre'ises as
co''ercial and to co'pl$ +ith the ter's of the :eed Restrictions.E
6

*he trial court dis'issed the co'plaint on a procedural )round, i.e.,
pendenc$ of an 7dentical action, Civil Case No. 3!346, entitled EBel2
(ir 3illa)e (ssociation, 7nc. v. ,esus *enorio.E *he Court of (ppeals
7
affir'ed, and held, in addition, that ,upiter -treet Eis classified as
Ci)h densit$ co''ercial "C23& Done as per Co'prehensive >onin)
?rdinance No. 1201 for National Capital Re)ion,E
8
follo+in) its o+n
rulin) in (C2G.R. No. 66649, entitled EBel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation, 7nc.
vs. C$2/and Realt$ J :evelop'ent Corporation, et al.E
777. G.R. No. 76394
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
:efendants2spouses 9duardo 3. Ro'ualdeD, ,r. and
Buena *ioseco are the o+ners of a house and lot located
at 10 ,upiter -t., 1akati, 1etro 1anila as evidenced #$
*ransfer Certificate of *itle No. 33!394 of the Re)istr$ of
:eeds of RiDal. *he fact is undisputed that at the ti'e the
defendants ac<uired the su#.ect house and lot, several
restrictions +ere alread$ annotated on the reverse side of
their title@ ho+ever, for purposes of this appeal +e shall
<uote hereunder onl$ the pertinent ones, to +it=
"#,& *his lotAshall #e used onl$ for residential purposes.
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
73. *er' of Restriction
*he fore)oin) restriction"s& shall re'ain in force for fift$
$ears fro' ,anuar$ 1%, 19%7, unless sooner cancelled in
its entiret$ #$ t+o2thirds vote of the 'e'#ers in )ood
standin) of the Bel2(ir (ssociation. Co+ever, the
(ssociation 'a$ fro' ti'e to ti'e, add ne+ ones, a'end
or a#olish particular restrictions or parts thereof #$
'a.orit$ rule.
:urin) the earl$ part of 1979, plaintiff noted that certain
renovations and constructions +ere #ein) 'ade #$ the
defendants on the su#.ect pre'ises, for +hich reason the
defendants +ere advised to infor' the plaintiff of the kind
of construction that +as )oin) on. Because the
defendants failed to co'pl$ +ith the re<uest of the
plaintiff, the latter8s chief securit$ officer visited the su#.ect
pre'ises on 1arch !3, 1979 and found out that the
defendants +ere puttin) up a #ake and coffee shop,
+hich fact +as confir'ed #$ defendant 1rs. Ro'ualdeD
herself. *hereafter, the plaintiff re'inded defendants that
the$ +ere violatin) the deed restriction. :espite said
re'inder, the defendants proceeded +ith the construction
of the #ake shop. Conse<uentl$, plaintiff sent defendants
a letter dated (pril 30, 1979 +arnin) the' that if the$ +ill
not desist fro' usin) the pre'ises in <uestion for
co''ercial purposes, the$ +ill #e sued for violations of
the deed restrictions.
:espite the +arnin), the defendants proceeded +ith the
construction of their #ake shop.
9

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he trial court
10
ad.ud)ed in favor of B(3(. ?n appeal, the Court of
(ppeals
11
reversed, on the stren)th of its holdin) in (C2G.R. No.
66649 earlier referred to.
B(3( then elevated the 'atter to the Court #$ a petition for revie+
on certiorari. *he Court
12
initiall$ denied the petition Efor lack of 'erit,
it appearin) that the conclusions of the respondent Court of (ppeals
that private respondents8 #ake and coffee shop lies +ithin a
co''ercial Done and that said private respondents are released fro'
their o#li)ations to 'aintain the lot kno+n as 10 ,upiter -treet for
residential purposes #$ virtue of ?rdinance No. 1 of the 1unicipalit$
of 1akati and Co'prehensive >onin) ?rdinance No. 1201 of the
1etropolitan 1anila Co''ission, are in accord +ith la+ and
.urisprudence,E
13
for +hich B(3( sou)ht a reconsideration. 6endin)
resolution, the case +as referred to the -econd :ivision of this Court,
14
and thereafter, to the Court 9n Banc en consulta.
15
6er our
Resolution, dated (pril !9, 19, +e consolidated this case +ith G.R.
Nos. 74376 and !!1.
16

73. G.R. No. 71!.
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he case ste''ed fro' the leasin) #$ defendant :olores
4ille$ of her #uildin) and lot situated at No. !0% Reposo
-treet, Bel2(ir 3illa)e 1akati, 1etro 1anila to her co2
defendant, the advertisin) fir' ,. Ro'ero and (ssociates,
in alle)ed violation of deed restrictions +hich stipulated
that 4ille$8s lot could onl$ #e used for residential
purposes. 6laintiff sou)ht .ud)'ent fro' the lo+er court
orderin) the defendants to Eper'anentl$ refrainE fro'
usin) the pre'ises in <uestion Eas co''ercialE and to
co'pl$ +ith the ter's of the deed restrictions.
(fter the proper proceedin)s, the court )ranted the
plaintiff the sou)ht for relief +ith the additional i'position
of e5e'plar$ da'a)es of 6%0,000.00 and attorne$8s fees
of 610,000.00. *he trial court )ave e'phasis to the
restrictive clauses contained in 4ille$8s deed of sale fro'
the plaintiff, +hich 'ade the conversion of the #uildin)
into a co''ercial one a violation.
:efendants no+ seek revie+ and reversal on three "3& assi)n'ents
of errors, na'el$=
7.
*C9 *R7(/ C?BR* 9RR9: 7N N?* 47N:7NG *C(*
*C9 R9GB/(*7?N- 6R?1B/G(*9: BF *C9
1BN7C76(/ (B*C?R7*79- 7N 1(K(*7 (N: *C9
17N7-*RF ?4 CB1(N -9**/919N*8- CC(NG7NG
*C9 CC(R(C*9R ?4 *C9 (R9(- 7N LB9-*7?N C(:
R9N:9R9: *C9 R9-*R7C*739 9(-919N* ?N *C9
*7*/9 ?4 *C9 (669//(N*- 3(C(*9:.
77.
*C9 C?BR* 9RR9: 7N N?* RB/7NG *C(* B9C(B-9
*C9 (669//99"-& C(: (//?;9: *C9 B-9 ?4 *C9
6R?69R*F ;7*C7N *C9 37//(G9 4?R N?N2
R9-7:9N*7(/ 6BR6?-9-, 7* 7- N?; 9-*?669:
4R?1 9N4?RC7NG *C9 R9-*R7C*739
6R?C7B7*7?N- -BB,9C* 1(**9R ?4 *C7- C(-9.
777.
*C9 C?BR* 9RR9: 7N N?* 47N:7NG *C(* *C9R9
9G7-*9: ( B7/(*9R(/ C?N*R(C* B9*;99N *C9
6(R*79- (N: *C(* -7NC9 (669//99 C(: N?*
69R4?R19: 7*- ?B/7G(*7?N- BN:9R *C7-
(RR(NG919N* *C9 (669//(N* 7N *BRN ;(-
BN:9R N? ?B/7G(*7?N *? (NN?*(*9 *C9
R9-*R7C*739 6R?C7B7*7?N- ?N *C9 B(CK ?4 *C9
*7*/9.
(ppellants anchor their appeal on the proposition that the
Bel2(ir 3illa)e area, contrar$ to plaintiff2 appellee8s
pretension of #ein) a strictl$ residential Done, is in fact
co''ercial and characteriDe the restrictions contained in
appellant 4ille$8s deed of sale fro' the appellee as
co'pletel$ out'oded, +hich have lost all relevance to the
present2da$ realities in 1akati, no+ the pre'ier #usiness
hu# of the nation, +here there is a proliferation of
nu'erous co''ercial enterprises esta#lished throu)h
the $ears, in fact even +ithin the heart of so2called
EresidentialE villa)es. *hus, it 'a$ #e said that appellants
#ase their position on the ine5ora#le 'arch of pro)ress
+hich has rendered at nau)ht the continued efficac$ of
the restrictions. (ppellant on the other hand, relies on a
ri)id interpretation of the contractual stipulations a)reed
upon +ith appellant 4ille$, in effect ar)uin) that the
restrictions are valid ad infinitu'.
*he lo+er court <uite properl$ found that other
co''ercial esta#lish'ents e5ist in the sa'e area "in fact,
on the sa'e street& #ut i)nored it .ust the sa'e and said2
*he fact that defendants +ere a#le to prove the e5istence
of several co''ercial esta#lish'ents inside the villa)e
does not e5e'pt the' fro' lia#ilit$ for violatin) so'e of
the restrictions evidentl$ choosin) to accord pri'ac$ to
contractual stipulation.
17
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he Court of (ppeals
18
overturned the lo+er court,
19
like+ise #ased
on (C2G.R. No. 66649. *he respondent Court o#served also that ,.
Ro'ero J (ssociates had #een )iven authorit$ to open a co''ercial
office #$ the Cu'an -ettle'ents Re)ulator$ Co''ission.
3. G.R. No. !!1
*he facts of this case have #een #ased on stipulation. ;e <uote=
C?19- N?;, the 6arties, assisted #$ their respective
counsel and to this Conora#le Court, respectfull$ enter
into the follo+in) stipulations of facts, to +it=
1. *he parties ad'it the personal circu'stances of each
other as +ell as their capacities to sue and #e sued.
!. *he parties ad'it that plaintiff B(3( for short& is the
le)all$ constituted ho'eo+ners8 association in Bel2(ir
-u#division, 1akati, 1etro 1anila.
3. *he parties ad'it that defendant 3iolets 1oncal is the
re)istered o+ner of a parcel of land +ith a residential
house constructed thereon situated at No. 104 ,upiter
-treet, Bel2(ir 3illa)e, 1akati, 1etro 1anila@ that as such
lot o+ner, she is a 'e'#er of the plaintiff association.
4. *he parties ad'it that defendant 1a.al :evelop'ent
Corporation "1a.al for short& is the lessee of defendant
1oncal8s house and lot located at No. 104 ,upiter -treet.
%. *he parties ad'it that a deed restrictions is annotated
on the title of defendant 1oncal, +hich provides, a'on)
others, that the lot in <uestion 'ust #e used onl$ for
residential purposes@8 that at ti'e 1oncal purchased her
aforesaid lot in 19%9 said deed restrictions +as alread$
annotated in the said title.
6. *he parties ad'it that +hen 1oncal leased her su#.ect
propert$ to 1a.al, she did not secure the consent of B(3(
to lease the said house and lot to the present lessee.
7. *he parties ad'it that alon) ,upiter -treet and on the
sa'e side +here 1oncal8s propert$ is located, there are
restaurants, clinics place'ent or e'plo$'ent a)encies
and other co''ercial or #usiness esta#lish'ents. *hese
esta#lish'ents, ho+ever, +ere sued #$ B(3( in the
proper court.
. *he parties ad'it that at the ti'e 1oncal purchased
the su#.ect propert$ fro' the 1akati :evelop'ent
Corporation, there +as a peri'eter +all, runnin) alon)
,upiter -treet, +hich +all +as constructed #$ the
su#division o+ner@ that at that ti'e the )ates of the
entrances to ,upiter -treet +ere closed to pu#lic traffic. 7n
short, the entire len)th of ,upiter +hich +as inside the
peri'eter +all +as not then open to pu#lic traffic
9. *he parties ad'it that su#se<uent thereto, ($ala tore
do+n the peri'eter +all to )ive +a$ to the co''ercial
#uildin) frontin) Buendia (venue "no+ Gil ,. 6u$at
(venue&.
10. *he parties ad'it that on (u)ust 1!, 1977, the 1a$or
of 1akati forci#l$ opened and re'oved the street )ates
constructed on ,upiter -treet and Reposo -treet, there#$
openin) said streets to the pu#lic.
11. *he parties ad'it plaintiffs letters of ?cto#er 10, !3
and 31, 194@ as +ell as defendants8 letters2repl$ dated
?cto#er 17 and !9, 194.
20

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he trial court
21
dis'issed the petitioner8s co'plaint, a dis'issal
affir'ed on appeal,
22
(ccordin) to the appellate court, the openin) of
,upiter -treet to hu'an and vehicular traffic, and the
co''ercialiDation of the 1unicipalit$ of 1akati in )eneral, +ere
circu'stances that had 'ade co'pliance #$ 1oncal +ith the
aforesaid Edeed restrictionsE Ee5tre'el$ difficult and unreasona#le,E
23
a develop'ent that had e5cused co'pliance alto)ether under (rticle
1!67 of the Civil Code.
37. *he cases #efore the Court@ the Court8s decision.
7n #rief, G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 71!, and !!1 are efforts to
enforce the Edeed restrictionsE in <uestion a)ainst specific residents
"private respondents in the petitions& of ,upiter -treet and +ith
respect to G.R. No. 71!, Reposo -treet. *he private respondents
are alle)ed to have converted their residences into co''ercial
esta#lish'ents "a restaurant in G.R. No. 74376, a #aker$ and coffee
shop in G.R. No. 76394, an advertisin) fir' in G.R. No. 71!@ and a
construction co'pan$, apparentl$, in G.R. No. !!1& in violation of
the said restrictions.
24

*heir 'other case, G. R. No. 71169 is, on the other hand, a petition
to hold the vendor itself, ($ala Corporation "for'erl$ 1akati
:evelop'ent Corporation&, lia#le for tearin) do+n the peri'eter +all
alon) ,upiter -treet that had therefore closed its co''ercial section
fro' the residences of Bel2(ir 3illa)e and usherin) in, as a
conse<uence, the full Eco''ercialiDationE of ,upiter -treet, in
violation of the ver$ restrictions it had authored.
(s ;e indicated, the Court of (ppeals dis'issed all five appeals on
the #asis pri'aril$ of its rulin) in (C2G.R. No. 66649, EBel2(ir 3illa)e,
7nc. v. C$2/and Realt$ :evelop'ent Corporation, et al.,E in +hich the
appellate court e5plicitl$ re.ected clai's under the sa'e 8deed
restrictionsE as a result of ?rdinance No. 1 enacted #$ the
Govern'ent of the 1unicipalit$ of 1akati, as +ell as Co'prehensive
>onin) ?rdinance No. 101 pro'ul)ated #$ the 1etropolitan 1anila
Co''ission, +hich t+o ordinances alle)edl$ allo+ed the use of
,upiter -treet #oth for residential and co''ercial purposes. 7t +as
like+ise held that these t+in 'easures +ere valid as a le)iti'ate
e5ercise of police po+er.
*he Court of (ppeals8 reliance on ?rdinance Nos. 1. and 101 is
no+ assailed in these petitions, particularl$ the -an)alan), et al.
petition.
(side fro' this funda'ental issue, the petitioners like+ise raise
procedural <uestions. G.R. No. 71169, the 'other case, #e)ins +ith
one.
1. G.R. No. 71169
7n this petition, the follo+in) <uestions are specificall$ put to the
Court=
1a$ the Conora#le 7nter'ediate (ppellate Court reverse
the decision of the trial court on issues +hich +ere neither
raised #$ (F(/( in its (ns+ers either to the Co'plaint or
-upple'ental Co'plaint nor specificall$ assi)ned as one
of the alle)ed errors on appealM
25

1a$ the Conora#le 7nter'ediate (ppellate Court
ar#itraril$ i)nore the decisive findin)s of fact of the trial
court, even if uncontradicted andAor docu'ented, and
pre'ised 'ainl$ on its o+n unsupported conclusions
totall$ reverse the trial court8s decisionM
26

1a$ the Conora#le 7nter'ediate (ppellate Court
disre)ard the trial court8s docu'ented findin)s that
respondent ($ala for its o+n self2interest and co''ercial
purposes contrived in #ad faith to do a+a$ +ith the
,upiter -treet peri'eter +all it put up three ti'es +hich
+all +as reall$ intended to separate the residential fro'
the co''ercial areas and there#$ insure the privac$ and
securit$ of Bel (ir 3illa)e pursuant to respondent ($ala8s
e5press continuin) representation andAor covenant to do
soM
27

a.
*he first <uestion represents an attack on the appellate court8s
reliance on ?rdinances Nos. 1 and 1201, a 'atter not supposedl$
taken up at the trial or assi)ned as an error on appeal. (s a rule, the
Court of (ppeals "then the 7nter'ediate (ppellate Court& 'a$
deter'ine onl$ such <uestions as have #een properl$ raised to it, $et,
this is not an infle5i#le rule of procedure. 7n CernandeD v. (ndal,
28
it
+as stated that Ean unassi)ned error closel$ related to an error
properl$ assi)ned, or upon +hich the deter'ination of the <uestion
raised #$ the error properl$ assi)ned is dependent, +ill #e considered
#$ the appellate court not+ithstandin) the failure to assi)n it as
error.E
29

7n Ba<uiran v. Court of (ppeals,
30
+e referred to the E 'odern trend
of procedure . . . accordin)I the courts #road discretionar$ po+erE
31

and in +hich +e allo+ed consideration of 'atters Ehavin) so'e
#earin) on the issue su#'itted +hich the parties failed to raise or the
lo+er court i)noreHdI.
32
(nd in 3da. de ,avellana v. Court of (ppeals,
33
+e per'itted the consideration of a 8patent error8 of the trial court #$
the Court of (ppeals under -ection 7, of Rule %1, of the Rules of
Court,
34
althou)h such an error had not #een raised in the #rief. But
+hat +e note is the fact that the ($ala Corporation did raise the
Donin) 'easures as affir'ative defenses, first in its ans+ers
35
and
second, in its #rief,
36
and su#'itted at the trial as e5hi#its.
37
*here is
accordin)l$ no cause for co'plaint on the part of the petitioners for
($ala8s violation of the Rules. But +hile there +as reason for the
consideration, on appeal, of the said Donin) ordinances in <uestion,
this Court nevertheless finds as inaccurate the Court of (ppeals8
holdin) that such 'easures, had Ein effect, H'adeI ,upiter -treet ... a
street +hich could #e used not onl$ for residential purposes,E
38
and
that EH7t lost its character as a street for the e5clusive #enefit of those
residin) in Bel2(ir 3illa)e co'pletel$.E
39

('on) other thin)s, there is a reco)nition under #oth ?rdinances
Nos. 1 and 1201 that ,upiter -treet lies as the #oundar$ #et+een
Bel2(ir 3illa)e and ($ala Corporation8s co''ercial section. (nd
since 19%7, it had #een considered as a #oundar$ not as a part of
either the residential or co''ercial Dones of ($ala Corporation8s real
estate develop'ent pro.ects. *hus, the Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation8s
articles of incorporation state that Bel2(ir 3illa)e is 8#ounded on the
N9., fro' ('apola -t., to de los -antos (ve., #$ 9strella -t., on the
-9 fro' 95trella -t., to 6edestrian /ane #$ 9. :e los -antos (ve., on
the -;., fro' 6edestrian /ane to Reposo -t., #$ ,upiter -treet
. . . .
40
Cence, it cannot #e said to have #een Efor the e5clusive
#enefitE of Bel2(ir 3illa)e residents.
;e co'e to the peri'eter +all then standin) on the co''ercial side
of ,upiter -treet the destruction of +hich opened the street to the
pu#lic. *he petitioners contend that the openin) of the thorou)hfare
had opened, in turn, the flood)ates to the co''ercialiDation of Bel2
(ir 3illa)e. *he +all, so the$ alle)e, +as desi)ned precisel$ to protect
the peace and privac$ of Bel2(ir 3illa)e residents fro' the din and
uproar of 'ercantile pursuits, and that the ($ala Corporation had
co''itted itself to 'aintain it. 7t +as the opinion of the Court of
(ppeals, as +e said, that ($ala8s lia#ilit$ therefor, if one e5isted, had
#een overtaken #$ the passa)e of ?rdinances Nos. 1 and !201,
openin) ,upiter -treet to co''erce.
7t is our rulin), +e reiterate, that ,upiter -treet lies as a 'ere
#oundar$, a fact ackno+led)ed #$ the authorities of 1akati and the
National Govern'ent and, as a scrutin$ of the records the'selves
reveals, #$ the petitioners the'selves, as the articles of incorporation
of Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation itself +ould confir'. (s a conse<uence,
,upiter -treet +as intended for the use #$ #oth 2the co''ercial and
residential #locks. 7t +as not ori)inall$ constructed, therefore, for the
e5clusive use of either #lock, least of all the residents of Bel2(ir
3illa)e, #ut, +e repeat, in favor of #oth, as distin)uished fro' the
)eneral pu#lic.
;hen the +all +as erected in 1966 and re#uilt t+ice, in 1970 and
197!, it +as not for the purpose of ph$sicall$ separatin) the t+o
#locks. (ccordin) to ($ala Corporation, it +as put up to ena#le the
Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation E#etter control of the securit$ in the area,
41
and as the ($ala Corporation8s Esho+ of )ood+ill E
42
a vie+ +e find
accepta#le in the pre'ises. 4or it cannot #e denied that at that ti'e,
the co''ercial area +as vacant, Eopen for HsicI ani'als and people
to have access to Bel2(ir 3illa)e.E
43
*here +as hence a necessit$ for
a +all.
7n an$ case, +e find the petitioners8 theor$, that 'aintainin) the +all
+as a 'atter of a contractual o#li)ation on the part of ($ala, to #e
pure con.ecture. *he records do not esta#lish the e5istence of such a
purported co''it'ent. 4or one, the su#division plans su#'itted did
not 'ention an$thin) a#out it. 4or another, there is nothin) in the
Edeed restrictionsE that +ould point to an$ covenant re)ardin) the
construction of a +all. *here is no representation or pro'ise
+hatsoever therein to that effect.
;ith the construction of the co''ercial #uildin)s in 1974, the reason
for +hich the +all +as #uilt2 to secure Bel2(ir 3illa)e fro' interlopers
had naturall$ ceased to e5ist. *he #uildin)s the'selves had provided
for'ida#le curtains of securit$ for the residents. 7t should #e noted
that the co''ercial lot #u$ers the'selves +ere forced to de'olish
parts of the +all to )ain access to ,upiter -treet, +hich the$ had after
all e<ual ri)ht to use.
7n fine, +e cannot hold the ($ala Corporation lia#le for da'a)es for a
co''it'ent it did not 'ake, 'uch less for alle)ed resort to
'achinations in evadin) it. *he records, on the contrar$, +ill sho+
that the Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation had #een infor'ed, at the ver$
outset, a#out the i'pendin) use of ,upiter -treet #$ co''ercial lot
#u$ers. ;e <uote=
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1. 95h. 7 of appellee, the 'e'orandu' of 1r. Car'elo
Calua), 6resident of B(3(, dated 1a$ 10, 197!,
infor'in) the B(3( Board of Governors and Barrio
Council 'e'#ers a#out the future use of ,upiter -treet #$
the lot o+ners frontin) Buendia (venue. *he use of
,upiter -treet #$ the o+ners of the co''ercial lots +ould
necessaril$ re<uire the de'olition of the +all alon) the
co''ercial #lock ad.oinin) ,upiter -treet.
!. 95h. , of appellee, the 'inutes of the .oint 'eetin) of
B(3( Board of Governors and the Bel2(ir Barrio Council
+here the 'atter that EBuendia lot o+ners +ill have e<ual
ri)hts to use ,upiter -treet,E and that ($ala8s Eplans a#out
the sale of lots and use of ,upiter -treetE +ere precisel$
taken up. *his confir's that fro' the start B(3( +as
infor'ed that the co''ercial lot o+ners +ill use ,upiter
-treet and that necessaril$ the +all alon) ,upiter -treet
+ould #e de'olished.
3. 95h. 10, the letter of 1r. :e'etrio Copu$oc to the
6resident of B(3(, dated 1a$ 16, 197!, e5pressl$ statin)
that vehicular entrance and e5it to the co''ercial lots
+ould #e allo+ed alon) ,upiter and side streets.
4. 95hs. !7, !72(, !72B, the letter of (tt$. -alvador ,.
/ora$es dated ,une 30, 197!, +ith enclosed cop$ of
proposed restriction for the co''ercial lots to B(3(. Ce
proposed restriction a)ain e5pressl$ stated that
E3ehicular entrances and e5its are allo+ed thru ,upiter
and an$ side streets.E
%. 95h. / of appellee, the 'inutes of the 'eetin) of the
'e'#ers of B(3(, dated (u)ust !6, 197!, +here it is
stated ERecentl$, ($ala Corporation infor'ed the Board
that the lots frontin) Buendia (venue +ill soon #e offered
for sale, and that future lot o+ners +ill #e )iven e<ual
ri)hts to use ,upiter -treet as +ell as 'e'#ers of the
(ssociation.E
6. 95h. !%, the letter of (tt$. /ora$es dated -epte'#er
!%, 197!, infor'in) B(3( of the +idenin) of ,upiter
-treet #$ 3.% 'eters to i'prove traffic flo+ in said street
to #enefit #oth the residents of Bel2(ir and the future
o+ners of the co''ercial lots.
44

*he petitioners cannot successfull$ rel$ on the alle)ed pro'ise #$
:e'etrio Copu$oc, ($ala8s 'ana)er, to #uild a EHfIence alon) ,upiter
+ith )ate for entrance andAor e5it
45
as evidence of ($ala8s alle)ed
continuin) o#li)ation to 'aintain a +all #et+een the residential and
co''ercial sections. 7t should #e o#served that the fence referred to
included a E)ate for entrance and or e5itE +hich +ould have defeated
the purpose of a +all, in the sense the petitioners +ould put in one,
that is to sa$, an i'penetra#le #arrier. But as ($ala +ould point out
su#se<uentl$, the proposed fence +as not constructed #ecause it
had #eco'e unnecessar$ +hen the co''ercial lot o+ners
co''enced constructions thereon.
Be that as it 'a$, the Court cannot visualiDe an$ purported o#li)ation
#$ ($ala Corporation to keep the +all on the stren)th of this
supposed pro'ise alone. 7f trul$ ($ala pro'ised an$thin) assu'in)
that Capu$oc +as authoriDed to #ind the corporation +ith a pro'ise it
+ould have #een +ith respect to the fence. 7t +ould not have
esta#lished the pre2e5istin) o#li)ation alle)ed +ith respect to the
+all.
?#li)ations arise, a'on) other thin)s, fro' contract.
46
7f ($ala, then,
+ere #ound #$ an o#li)ation, it +ould have #een pursuant to a
contract. ( contract, ho+ever, is characteriDed #$ a E'eetin) of
'inds #et+een t+o persons .
47
(s a consensual relation, it 'ust #e
sho+n to e5ist as a fact, clearl$ and convincin)l$. But it cannot #e
inferred fro' a 'ish'ash of circu'stances alone disclosin) so'e
kind of an Eunderstandin),E +hen especiall$, those disparate
circu'stances are not the'selves inco'pati#le +ith contentions that
no accord had e5isted or had #een reached.
48
*he petitioners cannot si'pl$ assu'e that the +all +as there for the
purpose +ith +hich the$ no+ )ive it, #$ the #are coincidence that it
had divided the residential #lock fro' the co''ercial section of Bel2
(ir. *he #urden of proof rests +ith the' to sho+ that it had indeed
#een #uilt precisel$ for that o#.ective, a proof that 'ust satisf$ the
re<uire'ents of our rules of evidence. 7t cannot #e 'ade to stand on
the stren)th of plain inferences.
#.
*his like+ise ans+ers the petitioners8 second <uer$, +hether or not
the Court of (ppeals had Ear#itraril$ i)nore"d& the decisive findin)s of
the trial court.E
49
i.e., findin)s pointin) to alle)ed acts perfor'ed #$
the ($ala Corporation provin) its co''it'ent to 'aintain the +all
a#ovesaid. -pecificall$, the petitioners refer to, a'on) other thin)s=
"1& ($ala8s alle)ed announce'ent to Bel2 (ir 3illa)e (ssociation
'e'#ers that EHthe peri'eter +all alon) ,upiter -treet +ill not #e
de'olished,E
50
"!& ($ala8s alle)ed co''it'ent Edurin) the pendenc$
of the case in the trial courtE to restore the +all@ "3& alle)ed
assurances #$ Copu$oc that the +all +ill not #e re'oved@ "4& alle)ed
contrivances #$ the corporation to 'ake the association ad'it as
'e'#ers the co''ercial lot #u$ers +hich provided the' e<ual
access to ,upiter -treet@ and "%& ($ala8s donation to the association
of ,upiter -treet for Eprivate useE of Bel2(ir residents.
51
6! "1903&, +here it +as held that E+hether the plaintiffs services
+ere solicited or +hether the$ +ere offered to the defendant for his
assistance, inas'uch as these services +ere accepted and 'ade
use of #$ the latter, +e 'ust consider that there +as a tacit and
'utual consent as to the rendition of services.E "(t 66.& 7n that case,
the defendant had enor'ousl$ #enefitted fro' the services that
entitled the plaintiff to co'pensation on the theor$ that no one 'a$
un.ustl$ enrich hi'self at the e5pense of another "-olutio inde#iti&
*he facts of this case differ.
(s +e stated, the ($ala Corporation8s alle)ed conduct prior to or
durin) the proceedin)s #elo+ are not necessaril$ at +ar +ith clai's
that no co''it'ent had #een in fact 'ade.
;ith respect to ($ala8s alle)ed announce'ent #efore the
association, the Court does not a)ree that ($ala had cate)oricall$
assu'ed as an o#li)ation to 'aintain the +all Eperpetuall$,E i.e., until
the $ear !007 "the e5piration date under the Edeed restrictions.E&
*here is nothin) in its state'ent that +ould #are an$ co''it'ent. 7n
connection +ith the conference #et+een the parties Edurin) the
pendenc$E of the trial, it is to #e noted that the ($ala Corporation
denies havin) +arranted the restoration of the said +all therein.
;hat, on the other hand, appears in the records is the fact that ($ala
did 'ake that pro'ise, #ut provided that the 1a$or allo+ed it. 7t
turned out, ho+ever, that the 1a$or #alked at the 7dea.
52
But
assu'in) that ($ala did pro'ise to re#uild the +all "in that
conference&, it does not see' to us that it did conse<uentl$ pro'ise
to 'aintain it in perpetuit$.
7t is unfair to sa$, as the trial court did, that the ($ala had Econtrived
to 'ake future co''ercial lot o+ners special 'e'#ers of B(3( and
there#$ ac<uire e<ual ri)ht +ith the re)ular 'e'#ers thereof to use
,upiter -treet
53
since, as +e stated, the co''ercial lot #u$ers have
the ri)ht, in an$ event, to 'ake use of ,upiter -treet, +hether or not
the$ are 'e'#ers of the association. 7t is not their 'e'#erships that
)ive the' the ri)ht to use it. *he$ share that ri)ht +ith Bel2(ir
residents fro' the outset.
*he o#.ective of 'akin) the co''ercial lot o+ners special 'e'#ers
of the Bel2(ir 3illa)e (ssociation +as not to accord the' e<ual
access to ,upiter -treet and inferentiall$, to )ive the' the ri)ht to
knock do+n the peri'eter +all. 7t +as, rather, to re)ulate the use of
the street o+in) precisel$ to the EplannedE nature of ($ala8s
develop'ent pro.ect, and real estate develop'ent in )eneral, and
this could #est #e done #$ placin) the co''ercial lot o+ners under
the association8s .urisdiction.
1oreover, ($ala8s overtures +ith the association concernin) the
'e'#ership of co''ercial lot #u$ers therein have #een sho+n to #e
neither perfidious nor unethical nor devious "paraphrasin) the lo+er
court&. ;e <uote ane+=
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
"7& ?n ,une 30, 197!, appellant infor'ed B(3( that in a
fe+ 'onths it shall su#divide and sell the co''ercial lots
#orderin) the north side of Buendia (venue 95tension
fro' Reposo -treet up to >odiac -treet. (ppellant also
infor'ed B(3( that it had taken all precautions and +ill
i'pose upon the co''ercial lot o+ners deed restrictions
+hich +ill har'oniDe and #lend +ith the develop'ent and
+elfare of Bel2(ir 3illa)e. (ppellant further applied for
special 'e'#ership in B(3( of the co''ercial lot
o+ners. ( cop$ of the deed restrictions for the
co''ercial lots +as also enclosed. *he proposed deed
restrictions shall include the 19 'eter set #ack of
#uildin)s fro' ,upiter -treet, the re<uire'ent for parkin)
space +ithin the lot of one "1& parkin) slot for ever$
sevent$ five "7%& 'eters of office space in the #uildin)
and the li'itation of vehicular traffic alon) Buendia to
entrance onl$, #ut allo+in) #oth vehicular entrance and
vehicular e5it throu)h ,upiter -treet and an$ side street.
7n its letter of ,ul$ 10, 197!, B(3( ackno+led)ed the a#ove letter of
appellant and infor'ed the latter that the application for special
'e'#ership of the co''ercial lot o+ners in B(3( +ould #e
su#'itted to B(3(8s #oard of )overnors for decision.
"& ?n -epte'#er !%,197!, appellant notified B(3( that,
after a careful stud$, it +as finall$ decided that the hei)ht
li'itation of #uildin)s on the co''ercial lots shall #e
increased fro' 1!.% 'eters to 1% 'eters. (ppellant
further infor'ed B(3( that ,upiter -treet shall #e
+idened #$ 3.% 'eters to i'prove traffic flo+ in said
street. B(3( did not repl$ to said letter, #ut on ,anuar$
!!, 1973, B(3( +rote a letter to the appellant infor'in)
the latter that the (ssociation had assessed the appellant,
as special 'e'#er of the association, the a'ount of
640,79%.00 "#ased on 1,%90 s<uare 'eters at 6.%0 per
s<uare 'eter& representin) the 'e'#ership dues of the
co''ercial lot o+ners for the $ear 1973, and re<uested
the appellant to re'it the a'ount +hich its #oard of
)overnors had alread$ included in its current #ud)et. 7n
repl$, appellant on ,anuar$ 31, 1973 infor'ed B(3( that
due to the +idenin) of ,upiter -treet, the area of the lots
+hich +ere accepted #$ the (ssociation as 'e'#ers +as
reduced to 76,7!6 s<uare 'eters. *hus, the
correspondin) due at 6.%0 per s<uare 'eter should #e
reduced to 63,363.00. *his a'ount, therefore, +as
re'itted #$ the appellant to B(3(. -ince then, the latter
has #een collectin) 'e'#ership dues fro' the o+ners of
the co''ercial lots as special 'e'#ers of the
(ssociation. (s a 'atter of fact, the dues +ere increased
several ti'es. 7n 190, the co''ercial lot o+ners +ere
alread$ #ein) char)ed dues at the rate of 63.00 per
s<uare 'eter. ":o'in)o, *-N, p. 36, 1arch 19, 190&. (t
this rate, the total 'e'#ership dues of the co''ercial lot
o+ners a'ount to 6!30,17.00 annuall$ #ased on the
total area of 76,7!6 s<uare 'eters of the co''ercial lots.
54

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he alle)ed undertakin), finall$, #$ ($ala in the deed of donation
"over ,upiter -treet& to leave ,upiter -treet for the private use of Bel2
(ir residents is #elied #$ the ver$ provisions of the deed. ;e <uote=
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
73. *hat the offer 'ade #$ the :?N?R had #een
accepted #$ the :?N99 su#.ect to the condition that the
propert$ +ill #e used as a street for the use of the
'e'#ers of the :?N99, their fa'ilies, personnel, )uests,
do'estic help and, under certain reasona#le conditions
and restrictions, #$ the )eneral pu#lic, and in the event
that said lots or parts thereof cease to #e used as such,
o+nership thereof shall auto'aticall$ revert to the
:?N?R. *he :?N99 shall al+a$s have Reposo -treet,
1akati (venue, and 6aseo de Ro5as open for the use of
the )eneral pu#lic. 7t is also understood that the :?N?R
shall continue the 'aintenance of the street at its
e5pense for a period of three $ears fro' date hereof.E
":eed of :onation, p. 6, 95h. 7&
55
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
*he donation, on the contrar$, )ave the )eneral pu#lic e<ual ri)ht to
it.
*he Court cannot then sa$, acceptin) the veracit$ of the petitioners8
factsE enu'erated a#ove, that the ($ala Corporation 'a$ #e held
lia#le for specific perfor'ance of a de'anda#le o#li)ation, let alone
da'a)es.
*he Court adds that ($ala can hardl$ #e held responsi#le for the
alle)ed deterioration of Elivin) and environ'ental conditionsE
56
of the
Bel2(ir area, as a conse<uence of E($ala8s authoriDed de'olition of
the ,upiter peri'eter +all in 19742197%. E
57
;e a)ree +ith ($ala that
until 1976, Ethere +as peace and <uietE at ,upiter -treet, as the
petitioners8 "-an)alan), Gaston, and Briones& co'plaints ad'it.
Cence, the de)eneration of peace and order in Bel2(ir cannot #e
ascri#ed to the destruction of the +all in 1974 and 197%.
;hat ($ala su#'its as the real cause +as the openin) of ,upiter
-treet to vehicular traffic in 1977.,
58
But this +as upon orders of the
1a$or, and for +hich the ho'eo+ners8 association had precisel$ filed
suit "Civil Case No. 3499&
59
to contest the act of the 1a$or.
c.
*his like+ise disposes of the third <uestion presented. *he
petitioners8 reliance on ($ala8s alle)ed conduct "provin) its alle)ed
co''it'ent&, so +e have ruled, is not +ell2taken. ($ala8s alle)ed
acts do not, #$ the'selves, reflect a co''it'ent to 'aintain the +all
in dispute. 7t cannot #e therefore said that the Court of (ppeals
Ear#itraril$ i)nore"dIE
60
the lo+er court8s findin)s. 6recisel$, it is the
dut$ of the appellate court to revie+ the findin)s of the trial .ud)e, #e
the$ of fact or la+.
61
7t is not #ound #$ the conclusions of the .ud)e,
for +hich reason it 'akes its o+n findin)s and arrives at its o+n
conclusions. Bnless a )rave a#use of discretion 'a$ #e i'puted to it,
it 'a$ accept or re.ect the lo+er tri#unal8s deter'inations and rel$
solel$ on the records.
(ccordin)l$, the Court affir's the Court of (ppeals8 holdin) that the
($ala Corporation, in its dealin)s +ith the petitioners, the Bel2(ir
3illa)e (ssociation in particular, had Eacted +ith .ustice, )ave the
appellees HpetitionersI their due and o#served honest$ and )ood
faith.E
62
E*herefore, under #oth (rticles 19 and !1 of the Civil Code,
the appellant H($alaI cannot #e held lia#le for da'a)es.E
63

!. G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 71!, J !!1
?ur decision also resolves, <uite anticli'acticall$, these co'panion
cases. But +e do so for various other reasons. 7n the -an)alan)
case, +e a#solve the ($ala Corporation pri'aril$ o+in) to our findin)
that it is not lia#le for the openin) of ,upiter -treet to the )eneral
pu#lic. 7nsofar as these petitions are concerned, +e like+ise
e5culpate the private respondents, not onl$ #ecause of the fact that
,upiter -treet is not covered #$ the restrictive ease'ents #ased on
the Edeed restrictionsE #ut chiefl$ #ecause the National Govern'ent
itself, throu)h the 1etro 1anila Co''ission "11C&, had reclassified
,upiter -treet into hi)h densit$ co''ercial "C23& Done,
64
pursuant to
its ?rdinance No. 1201. Cence, the petitioners have no cause of
action on the stren)th alone of the said Edeed restrictions.
7n vie+ thereof, +e find no need in resolvin) the <uestions raised as
to procedure, since this disposition is sufficient to resolve these
cases.
7t is not that +e are sa$in) that restrictive ease'ents, especiall$ the
ease'ents herein in <uestion, are invalid or ineffective. (s far as the
Bel2(ir su#division itself is concerned, certainl$, the$ are valid and
enforcea#le. But the$ are, like all contracts, su#.ect to the overridin)
de'ands, needs, and interests of the )reater nu'#er as the -tate
'a$ deter'ine in the le)iti'ate e5ercise of police po+er. ?ur
.urisdiction )uarantees sanctit$ of contract and is said to #e the Ela+
#et+een the contractin) parties,
65
#ut +hile it is so, it cannot
contravene 8la+, 'orals, )ood custo's, pu#lic order, or pu#lic polic$.
66
(#ove all, it cannot #e raised as a deterrent to police po+er,
desi)ned precisel$ to pro'ote health, safet$, peace, and enhance the
co''on )ood, at the e5pense of contractual ri)hts, +henever
necessar$. 7n ?rti)as J Co., /i'ited 6artnership v. 4eati Bank and
*rust Co.,
67
+e are told=
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
!. ;ith re)ard to the contention that said resolution
cannot nullif$ the contractual o#li)ations assu'ed #$ the
defendant2appellee referrin) to the restrictions
incorporated in the deeds of sale and later in the
correspondin) *ransfer Certificates of *itle issued to
defendant2appellee it should #e stressed, that +hile non2
i'pair'ent of contracts is constitutionall$ )uaranteed, the
rule is not a#solute, since it has to #e reconciled +ith the
le)iti'ate e5ercise of police po+er, i.e., Ethe po+er to
prescri#e re)ulations to pro'ote the health, 'orals,
peace, education, )ood order or safet$ and )eneral
+elfare of the people.8 7nvaria#l$ descri#ed as Ethe 'ost
essential, insistent, and illi'ita#le of po+ersE and Ein a
sense, the )reatest and 'ost po+erful attri#ute of
)overn'ent,E the e5ercise of the po+er 'a$ #e .udiciall$
in<uired into and corrected onl$ if it is capricious,
+hi'sical, un.ust or unreasona#le, there havin) #een a
denial of due process or a violation of an$ other
applica#le constitutional )uarantee. (s this Court held
throu)h ,ustice ,ose 6. Ben)son in 6hilippine /on)
:istance Co'pan$ vs. Cit$ of :avao, et al. police po+er
8is elastic and 'ust #e responsive to various social
conditions@ it is not confined +ithin narro+
circu'scriptions of precedents restin) on past conditions@
it 'ust follo+ the le)al pro)ress of a de'ocratic +a$ of
life.8 ;e +ere even 'ore e'phatic in 3da. de Genuino vs.
*he Court of a)rarian Relations, et al., +hen ;e
declared= E;e do not see +h$ pu#lic +elfare +hen
clashin) +ith the individual ri)ht to propert$ should not #e
'ade to prevail throu)h the state8s e5ercise of its police
po+er.E
Resolution No. !7, 1960 declarin) the +estern part of
Ci)h +a$ %4, no+ 9. de los -antos (venue "9:-(, for
short& fro' -ha+ Boulevard to the 6asi) River as an
industrial and co''ercial Done, +as o#viousl$ passed #$
the 1unicipal Council of 1andalu$on), RiDal in the
e5ercise of police po+er to safe)uard or pro'ote the
health, safet$, peace, )ood order and )eneral +elfare of
the people in the localit$. ,udicial notice 'a$ #e taken of
the conditions prevailin) in the area, especiall$ +here
/ots Nos. % and 6 are located. *he lots the'selves not
onl$ front the hi)h+a$@ industrial and co''ercial
co'ple5es have flourished a#out the place. 9:-(, a
'ain traffic arter$ +hich runs throu)h several cities and
'unicipalities in the 1etro 1anila area, supports an
endless strea' of traffic and the resultin) activit$, noise
and pollution are hardl$ conducive to the health, safet$ or
+elfare of the residents in its route. Cavin) #een
e5pressl$ )ranted the po+er to adopt Donin) and
su#division ordinances or re)ulations, the 'unicipalit$ of
1andalu$on), throu)h its 1unicipal Council, +as
reasona#l$, if not perfectl$, .ustified under the
circu'stances, in passin) the su#.ect resolution.
68

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Bndou#tedl$, the 11C ?rdinance represents a le)iti'ate e5ercise of
police po+er. *he petitioners have not sho+n +h$ +e should hold
other+ise other than for the supposed Enon2i'pair'entE )uarant$ of
the Constitution, +hich, as +e have declared, is secondar$ to the
'ore co'pellin) interests of )eneral +elfare. *he ?rdinance has not
#een sho+n to #e capricious or ar#itrar$ or unreasona#le to +arrant
the reversal of the .ud)'ents so appealed. 7n that connection, +e find
no reversi#le error to have #een co''itted #$ the Court of (ppeals.
;C9R94?R9, pre'ises considered, these petitions are :9N79: No
pronounce'ent as to costs.
7* 7- -? ?R:9R9:.