View full case

NORTH GREENHILLS ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. NARCISO MORALES

FACTS:

Atty. Narciso Morales filed a complaint against the North Greenhills Association, Inc. (NGA) before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for allegedly blocking his side access to a community park. NGA contended that it had the right to fence the property and impose reasonable conditions for its use. The HLURB Arbiter ordered NGA to remove the pavilion, relocate the restroom, and remove the obstruction to Atty. Morales' side door. NGA appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which modified the ruling by ordering NGA to relocate the restroom. NGA appealed to the Office of the President (OP), but the OP affirmed the HLURB Board's ruling. NGA then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the OP erred in its findings. The CA affirmed the OP's ruling, stating that the restrooms built by NGA posed sanitary issues that could adversely affect Atty. Morales and his household.

The case involved a dispute between the homeowner's association, NGA, and Atty. Morales regarding the construction of a toilet adjacent to Atty. Morales' house in McKinley Park. Atty. Morales filed a complaint before the HLURB alleging that the toilet built by NGA was a nuisance per se and posed health risks. The HLURB ruled in favor of NGA, but on appeal, the OP reversed the decision and ordered the removal of the toilet. NGA brought the case to the CA, arguing that it failed to present evidence to support its claim that the toilet was necessary. The CA affirmed the OP's ruling and denied NGA's motion for reconsideration.

NGA filed a complaint against the respondent for the unlawful occupation of a subdivision and failure to pay association dues. NGA claimed that the respondent, as a lot owner, was obligated to pay association dues but had failed to do so for the past 33 years. The RTC ruled in favor of NGA, but the CA reversed the ruling, holding that the counterclaim for unpaid association dues was permissive. NGA filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court to challenge the CA's ruling.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the CA correctly ruled that the HLURB had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty. Morales.

  2. Whether the CA correctly ruled that the restroom built by NGA inside McKinley Park is a nuisance per accidens.

  3. Whether NGA has the right to block Atty. Morales' access to the park.

  4. Whether the CA correctly ruled that the counterclaim of NGA against Atty. Morales for unpaid association dues was a permissive counterclaim.

  5. Whether the restroom is a nuisance per accidens.

  6. Whether Atty. Morales had a right of access to McKinley Park.

  7. Whether Atty. Morales has the right to an unbridled access to the park through his side door.

  8. Whether the order to relocate the restroom to another area is proper.

  9. Whether the counterclaim for unpaid association dues is compulsory or permissive.

RULING:

  1. The Court partly grants the petition.

  2. On Jurisdiction:

  3. The Court ruled that Atty. Morales, by filing his complaint as a member whose rights have been allegedly violated, satisfied the requirement that the allegations of membership must be clear in the complaint for HLURB to acquire jurisdiction over disputes among members of an association. NGA, in its counterclaim, demanded payment of association dues from Atty. Morales, confirming his status as a member of NGA. The Court held that Atty. Morales is a member of NGA, albeit a delinquent one. Thus, the HLURB had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty. Morales.

  4. The Court held that the CA erred in ruling that the restroom is a nuisance per accidens. The CA's finding was based on speculation and not on actual evidence. There was no proof presented to show that the restroom posed sanitary issues or caused annoyance to Atty. Morales and his family. Therefore, the order to relocate the restroom was improper.

  5. The Court agreed with NGA that Atty. Morales did not have a right of access to McKinley Park. As the owner of the park, NGA had the right to enclose or fence its property and exclude others from accessing it. The CA erred in upholding Atty. Morales' unrestricted access to the park as it went against NGA's statutory right as the owner.

  6. The Court of Appeals violated the right of NGA by affirming Atty. Morales' entitlement to an unbridled access to the park through his side door. Atty. Morales failed to establish any clear right by prescription, agreement, or legal easement to access the park through his side door. Furthermore, he did not claim that his side door was his only access to the park, and he had other means of accessing it. Atty. Morales cannot assert that his access to the park can only be done through his side door, as he knows that he can access it through other parts of the park. The conditions set forth in the Deed of Donation by Ortigas & Co. Ltd. to NGA cannot be used by Atty. Morales in his favor.

  7. The order to relocate the restroom to another area is reversed. The record does not show any valid grounds for the relocation of the restroom.

  8. The counterclaim for unpaid association dues is permissive. The main issues in the complaint are limited to the access to the park and the status of the restroom. The counterclaim for unpaid association dues is a distinct matter and does not relate to the main cause of Atty. Morales against NGA. Whether there was payment or non-payment of association dues is irrelevant to the main issues. The failure to raise the issue of unpaid association dues in this case does not bar the filing of a separate action to collect it.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.

  • Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

  • Membership in a homeowners' association is voluntary and cannot be unilaterally forced by a provision in the association's articles of incorporation or by-laws if the alleged member did not agree to be bound by them.

  • The court should generally only consider the facts alleged in the complaint in determining its jurisdiction, but there may be instances when a rigid application of this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or prejudice to a party's substantial right.

  • Factual findings are generally conclusive upon the Court, but there are exceptions.

  • A nuisance per accidens requires a proper appreciation of evidence before a court or tribunal can rule that the property being maintained is a nuisance.

  • An owner has the right to enclose or fence their property and exclude others from accessing it.

  • Courts have no business in securing the access of a person to another property absent any clear right on the part of the latter.

  • A counterclaim is compulsory if there exists a logical relationship between the main claim and the counterclaim, involving the same factual and legal issues.

  • Payment or non-payment of association dues is a distinct matter and is irrelevant to the main issues of a case. The failure to raise the issue or its dismissal does not bar the filing of a separate action to collect it.