SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206340. January 23, 2019.]
ZENAIDA P. DE ZUNIGA, ROGELITO R. PENAFLOR, HELEN ABALOS, CORAZON P. CARLOS, VENUS R. MANIMTIM-CLEOFE AND DANILO R. MANIMTIM, ALL REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ZENAIDA P. DE ZUNIGA AND PENAFLOR MAYBUNGA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCA ALVAREZ, MILA CAACBAY, ANGELES EVANGELISTA, EDNA VERGARA, CRISPINA MARCELINO, EDUARDO YCO, NELLIE CORTEZ, REGINA AGUIRRE, ROSALINDA SANCHEZ, PILAR SICAT AND SONIA DULARZA AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206340 — ZENAIDA P. DE ZUNIGA, * ROGELITO R. PENAFLOR, HELEN ABALOS, CORAZON P. CARLOS, VENUS R. MANIMTIM-CLEOFE and DANILO R. MANIMTIM, all represented by ATTY. ZENAIDA P. DE ZUNIGA and PENAFLOR ** MAYBUNGA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., represented by its President, Officers and Members of the Board of Directors, petitioners, versus FRANCISCA ALVAREZ, MILA CAACBAY, ANGELES EVANGELISTA, EDNA VERGARA, CRISPINA MARCELINO, EDUARDO YCO, NELLIE *** CORTEZ, REGINA AGUIRRE, ROSALINDA SANCHEZ, PILAR SICAT and SONIA DULARZA and any and all Persons claiming rights under them, respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) assailing the Decision 2 dated August 31, 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated March 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121682. The CA Decision granted the petition filed by respondents and set aside the Decision 5 dated June 6, 2011 and the Order dated September 19, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 166 (RTC) in SCA Case No. 3535, reversing the Decision 6 dated December 30, 2010 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69 (MeTC) in Civil Case No. 16549 that dismissed petitioners' complaint for unlawful detainer. The CA Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration filed by respondents.
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
As narrated by the CA, the facts are:
Subject of the controversy is an unregistered parcel of land, identified as Lot 7279, CAD 579, located at Penaflor Compound, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City with an area of x x x 5,416 x x x square meters, covered by Tax Declaration No. TD-013-09344 of the Assessor of Pasig City in the name of Cristina Cruz [(Cristina)].
On December 22, 2009, Cristina's legitimate heirs and successors-in-interest, represented by Atty. Zenaida P. Zuniga and the Penaflor Maybunga Neighborhood Association [(petitioners)] filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer against herein [respondents], docketed as Civil Case No. 16549 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69.
It was alleged in the complaint that Penaflor Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. was originally registered with the Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation in January 1998 and with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2006. On May 19, 1998, the said association entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the heirs of Cristina for the conveyance of [the] subject property thru financing under the community mortgage program of the government. On May 22, 2007, another Memorandum of Agreement was executed by them, later amended on May 20, 2008, for the members' acquisition of the subject land through "direct installment negotiated purchase" under the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement. [Petitioners] sought to eject [respondents] from the subject land on the ground of the latter's expulsion from the neighborhood association for non-payment of association dues and holding illegal election of new set of officers representing the association. According to the heirs of Cristina, they have authority to institute an ejectment suit against members of the association who violated the Memorandum of Agreement. Despite demand, [respondents] refused to vacate the portion they occupied in the subject property, hence the present complaint for unlawful detainer.
[Respondents] countered that they were among the first settlers in the subject property. They claimed that the land subject of the [present] controversy, wherein they reside for [more] than x x x 30 x x x years, is an unregistered public land covered by Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA). The government, thru DENR, permitted them to occupy and construct houses on the subject land and their application for miscellaneous sales pertaining to the portion they presently occupied were already accepted by the government. While admitting that they are members of the Penaflor Maybunga Neighborhood Association, [respondents] denied having participated nor consented in the execution of any of the Memorandum of Agreement that the association entered into with [petitioner-]landowners for the purpose of selling to the members of the association the subject property on installment basis. Teresita Alcoran, the association president, was not duly authorized to enter into such agreement.
For lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction, the MeTC dismissed the complaint. The MeTC held:
"It is noted that the present complaint merely alleged non-payment of association dues and illegal activities committed by [respondents]. The elements to be proved and resolved in unlawful detainer cases are the fact of lease and expiration [or] violation of its terms (Ocampo v. Tirona, 455 SCRA 62). There is no indication in the complaint that the possession of [respondents] was thru lease or tolerance by the purported [petitioner-]owners. Hence, not having complied with the jurisdictional requirements, ergo, this case is dismissible. On the second note, this court is stripped of jurisdiction to discuss any breach of contract committed by [respondents] against [petitioner] association that caused their expulsion from the association as the same is incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Sec. [19(1)] BP Blg. 129 as amended)."
On appeal to the RTC, the Decision of the MeTC was set aside. The RTC found the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the MeTC has jurisdiction over it. It likewise ruled that [respondents'] right to possess the subject property depend upon on their faithful compliance with the agreements the association entered into with the landowners. These agreements, particularly the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 20, 2008, clearly provides a condition that an occupant of the subject property must be a member in good standing of the neighborhood association. Thus, [respondents'] expulsion as members of the association is a valid ground for their eviction from the subject premises.
Hence, the x x x petition [to the CA]. 7
The CA granted the petition and set aside the RTC Decision dated June 6, 2011 and the Order dated September 19, 2011. The CA sustained the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. 8
The CA stated that the unlawful detainer suit was only founded on the expulsion of respondents as members of the neighborhood association for non-payment of their association dues and for committing illegal activities against the interest of the association. 9 This ground, according to the CA, could not equate as a cause of action for unlawful detainer under Rule 70 of the Rules. 10
The CA further observed that the present controversy is closely intertwined with the rights and privileges of the members of the neighborhood association under the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) of the government; and the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). 11
Hence, the present Rule 45 Petition. Respondents filed a Comment 12 dated October 17, 2013. Petitioners filed a Reply to Comment 13 dated April 25, 2014.
Issue
The Petition only assails the dismissal of the unlawful detainer complaint by the CA Decision on the ground that there is no indication that possession of respondents was thru lease or tolerance by the purported petitioner-owners.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
Since petitioners only question the dismissal by the CA of the unlawful detainer complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, the CA's dismissal of their complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction — the HLURB having jurisdiction over the case, which involves membership in a homeowners' association formed under the government's CMP — has attained finality. Thus, regardless of the resolution of the issue posed in the Petition, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction stands.
On this point, the Court totally agrees with the CA's invocation of Eugenio v. Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association14 (Eugenio). As described in Eugenio, CMP is a mode of land acquisition introduced by Republic Act No. 7279 15 where the beneficiaries of the Program are responsible for their organization into associations to manage their subdivisions or places of residences, to secure housing loans under existing CMP and such other projects beneficial to them. 16 The Court emphatically ruled in Eugenio:
While a complaint for ejectment, which raises the issue of who has a better right of possession, falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of first level courts, the right of possession in the present case is, however, necessarily intertwined with a determination of rights and privileges under a distinctive social housing concept such as CMP, which falls within the expertise of the HLURB.
The foregoing discussions leave it unnecessary to delve on petitioners' assigned error respecting their extrajudicial and summary eviction from the lots they occupy. It is settled that eviction is a necessary consequence of petitioners' exclusion from the benefits of the CMP. 17
As found by both the MeTC and the CA, the unlawful detainer suit was grounded only on the expulsion of respondents as members of the Penaflor Maybunga Neighborhood Association, Inc. for non-payment of their association dues and committing illegal activities against the association's interest. 18 The determination of whether these grounds exist and are sufficient to exclude respondents from the benefits of the CMP rests within the jurisdiction of the HLURB. Eviction can only proceed thereafter.
Also, the HLURB has jurisdiction over the present case since the right of possession is necessarily intertwined with a determination of respondents' rights and privileges under a distinctive social housing concept such as the CMP.
Since it is the HLURB which has jurisdiction over the case, a resolution of the issue posed by petitioners is rendered superfluous.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 31, 2012 and the Resolution dated March 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121682 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Zuñiga" and "Zuniega" in some parts of the rollo.
** Also stated as "Peñaflor" and "Peneflor" in some parts of the rollo.
*** Also stated as "Nelly" in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 10-26, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 73-83. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
3.Id. at 102-103.
4. Fifth Division.
5.Rollo, pp. 66-71. Penned by Presiding Judge Rowena De Juan-Quinagoran.
6.Id. at 63-65. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jacqueline J. Ongpauco.
7.Id. at 74-77.
8.Id. at 82.
9.Id. at 80.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12. Id. at 110-120.
13. Id. at 127-135.
14. 650 Phil. 166 (2010).
15. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PROGRAM, ESTABLISH THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
16. Eugenio v. Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association, supra note 15, at 168; Republic Act No. 7279, Sec. 33.
17. Id. at 174.
18. Rollo, p. 80.