Purok Pagkakaisa Association, Inc. v. AFP Officers Village Association, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250737. March 30, 2022.]

PUROK PAGKAKAISA ASSOCIATION, INC., AND SAMAHAN NG MGA SUNDALO'T SIBILYAN TUNGO SA KAUNLARAN, INC., petitioners,vs. AFP OFFICERS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 March 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250737 (Purok Pagkakaisa Association, Inc., and Samahan ng mga Sundalo't Sibilyan Tungo sa Kaunlaran, Inc. vs. AFP Officers Village Association, Inc.). — This is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (Petition) 1 seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated 24 September 2018 and the Amended Decision 3 dated 03 December 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152643.

Antecedents

Respondent AFP Officers Village Association, Inc. (respondent), the registered homeowners association of homeowners in the AFP Officers Village, filed a Complaint 4 before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to cancel the registration of petitioners Purok Pagkakaisa Association, Inc. (PPAI) and Samahan ng mga Sundalo't Sibilyan Tungo sa Kaunlaran, Inc. (SSSTKI) (collectively, petitioners). Respondent alleged that petitioners are the associations of informal settlers inside the village whose registration as homeowners association should be cancelled on the following grounds: (1) petitioners' members do not qualify as "homeowners" as defined in Republic Act No. (RA) 9004; 5 (2) their registration resulted in the conflict of rights and powers between respondents and petitioners; and (3) there is no subdivision or village named "Purok Pagakakaisa," "Sitio Kaunlaran," or "Sitio Pinaglabanan" nor is there an approved subdivision plan. 6

In their Answer, 7 petitioners averred that they were both registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Sometime in 1990, the original members of these associations were invited by a certain military personnel to relocate their homes to Western Bicutan, Taguig City along with a guarantee that the government will award them the property. They paid P200.00 as membership fee. When they first settled in the village, it was a grazing area with no roads and no provision for water and electricity. Since the associations' registration in 1993 and 1992, they were actively performing the duties and responsibilities of a homeowners association. They maintain that petitioners and respondent can co-exist. The families residing in the village are not equally situated in terms of economic status since a greater number of them belong to the urban poor. Consequently, it is more beneficial for these families to have their own association. 8

Ruling of the HLURB

In a Decision 9 dated 17 August 2016, the HLURB dismissed the complaint. It was ruled that respondent failed to substantiate its allegation that PPAI and SSSTKI cannot qualify as homeowners associations. It also upheld the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the certificates of registration in favor of PPAI and SSSTKI. 10

On appeal, the HLURB Board of Commissioners (HLURB Board) set aside the HLURB Decision and ordered the cancellation of the certificates of registration/incorporation of PPAI and SSSTKI. 11 In its Decision 12 dated 15 June 2017, HLURB Board ruled that the land being occupied by all of the parties was part of government land, which was subdivided by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. (PP) 461. On the other hand, PPAI and SSSTKI did not deny that they are informal settlers and are not necessarily service members of the armed forces, who are the true and rightful beneficiaries under PP 461. 13 CAIHTE

Further, the HLURB Board stated that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) had already declared with finality that the land they occupy, have already been awarded and titled to other citizens in an earlier housing program for personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. 14

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the matter to the CA. 15

Ruling of the CA

In the Decision dated 24 September 2018, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. PPAI and SSSTKI did not appeal the HLURB Board's Decision before the Office of the President pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule XXI of HLURB Resolution No. 765, Series of 2004. 16

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration, which the CA granted in its Amended Decision dated 3 December 2019. The CA ruled that it has jurisdiction to review the decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners involving intra-association and inter-association controversies and/or conflicts as provided in Sec. 20 (d) of RA 9904. 17

Nonetheless, the CA ruled that administrative agencies are given wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative function, and this includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special competence. While this admits of exceptions, none is applicable in this case. It is the HLURB which is vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate and supervise homeowner associations, provides the definition of homeowners. The CA agreed with the HLURB Board that PPAI and SSSTKI do not fall under any of the categories defining homeowners in Sec. 3 (j) of RA 9904. 18

Issues

In the present Petition, petitioners allege that the CA misapplied the rule on deference to the findings of administrative agencies. They argue that the CA overlooked undisputed facts that will justify a different conclusion. Petitioners highlight that they have submitted the documents required by HLURB for their registration, and these documents have undergone evaluation. There was also an ocular inspection of the place and they attended the mandatory seminar. 19

Moreover, petitioners claim that their plight has been recognized by the local government unit 20 and the Department of Justice (DOJ)-Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP). 21 They also attached documents to prove that they have been in existence for more than 30 years, such as a Barangay Certification, 22 and their respective Tax Identification Numbers showing that they are recognized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Petitioners also made reference to a Certificate of Accreditation 23 from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Taguig which shows that PPAI is a legitimate neighborhood association. Petitioners likewise presented a Tax Declaration 24 in the name of PPAI's President Rhino Alvarez.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition is denied for lack of merit.

It is settled that in the absence of substantial showing that the findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise were arrived at from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are considered conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, are not to be disturbed. 25 In this case, there is no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the HLURB 26 Board of Commissioners as affirmed by the CA. None of the exceptions to the aforementioned rule are present in this case. Be that as it may, We resolve the issues raised by petitioners.

RA 9904 or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations requires all associations of homeowners to register with the HLURB. This confirms the authority of HLURB to decide issues relating to registration of homeowners associations, thus:

Section 4. Registration with the HLURB. — Every association of homeowners shall be required to register with the HLURB. This registration shall serve to grant juridical personality to all such associations that have not previously acquired the same by operation of the General Corporation Law or by any other general law.

The procedure for registration shall be specifically provided for in the implementing rules and regulations to be promulgated by the HLURB pursuant to Section 28 of this Act. Such procedure shall provide for an adjudicatory mechanism that will be observed in the event there is a dispute to involving two (2) or more associations established within the same subdivision/village, community/area, or housing project seeking registration. In resolving this type of dispute, the HLURB shall take into account the date each association was legally established, the date of submission of its application for registration, the number of members, and other similar factors. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Further, Sec. 20, Rule 5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9904 also explains the adjudicatory power of HLURB in case two (2) or more homeowners associations register or apply for registration within the same subdivision, to wit: DETACa

Section 20. Number of Associations. — As far as practicable, only one (1) homeowners association shall be established and registered with HLURB in each subdivision, except in cases where the subdivision consists of two (2) or more phases. In case two (2) or more associations are registered or applying for registration within the same subdivision, the HLURB shall decide which association shall decide which association shall be registered after the procedures for adjudicatory mechanism as provided in this Rules are observed. (Emphasis supplied)

Correlatively, Sec. 4 (c) of Rule 1 of the same IRR defines "adjudicatory mechanism" as referring to the procedure in settling disputes involving the registration of two (2) or more associations established within the same subdivision/village, community area, or housing project.

These provisions recognize that concomitant to the authority of the HLURB to register homeowner's associations is the power to cancel the registration especially when two (2) or more homeowners associations are registered for the same subdivision/village, community area, or housing project as in this case. As such, the certificates of registration issued by HLURB in favor of PPSAI and SSSTKI does not mean that the same cannot be later on revoked or cancelled.

The Court likewise affirms the CA ruling that petitioners do not qualify in any of the categories of homeowners defined under Sec. (j) of RA 9904, which state in part:

x x x The HLURB is vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate and supervise homeowner associations. Every association of homeowners shall be required to register with the HLURB to acquire juridical personality. Section 3 (j) of the law identifies a homeowner in this wise:

(1) An owner or purchaser of a lot in a subdivision/village;

(2) An awardee, usufructuary, or legal occupant of a unit, house and/or lot in a government socialized or economic housing or relocation project and other urban estates; or

(3) An informal settler in the process of being accredited as beneficiary or awardee of ownership rights under the [Community Mortgage Program], [Land Tenurial Assistance Program] and other similar programs.

Petitioners do not qualify in any of these categories. They are not owners or purchasers of a lot in the AFP Officers Village. They do not have any title to the property they are occupying. They are also not awardees, usufructuaries, or legal occupants of a unit, house and/or lot in any government socialized or economic housing or relocation project and other urban estates. They also do not fall within the category of informal settlers as defined in Section 3 (j) (3) — an informal settler in the process of being accredited as beneficiary or awardee of ownership rights under the CMP, LTAP, and other similar programs. By their own allegation, petitioners were merely invited by a certain military personnel to relocate their residential homes to the village. Upon payment of P200.00 membership fee, they were told that the property they occupy will be awarded to them by the government. There is no evidence, however, that the property was awarded to them. Thus, in all practical sense, petitioners are not homeowners based on the definition of RA No. 9004.

Petitioners' disqualification to register as a homeowners association is reinforced by the May 18, 2015 Order issued by the DENR which has declared with finality that the land petitioners occupy have already been awarded and titled to other citizens in an earlier housing program for personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Further, the inventory of Proclamation No. 461, as of December 2013, shows that almost all lots in AFP Officers Village have been awarded to claimants/allocatees, as early as 1987, which do not include petitioners. 27

Petitioners insist that their situation is recognized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Taguig and the DOJ-COSLAP, which the HLURB Board of Commissioners and the CA should have considered in making their respective rulings.

However, the supposed recognition falls short of a definitive ruling on the right of petitioners' members over their claimed lots. Resolution No. 113 28 of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Taguig impliedly recognized that respondent has the right over the property. The operative words are "be urged," and is therefore not mandatory:

"NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the officers of AFPOVAI or the developers of the AFPOVAI be urged, as they hereby are, to develop a portion of the AFPOVAI area for socialized housing equivalent to at least twenty (20%) percent of the total subdivision area for the benefit of the qualified program beneficiaries who in this case are the aforementioned underprivileged and homeless residents in the area x x x"

Notably, DOJ-COSLAP Resolution 29 dated 7 January 2000 actually refers the case for determination to a different government agency, which was not shown to have ruled in petitioners' favor with finality. The same is true with the other documents presented by petitioners insofar as they do not prove that they are homeowners as defined under RA 9904. It bears reiterating that, as recognized by the CA, petitioners' disqualification to register as a homeowners association has been reinforced by the 18 May 2015 Order of the DENR which has declared with finality that the land petitioners occupy have already been awarded and titled to other citizens in an earlier housing program for the personnel of the AFP.

Finally, HLURB did not violate petitioners' constitutional right to form unions, associations or societies, and the promotion of non-government community based or sectoral organizations, when it cancelled registration. Petitioners are not prohibited from organizing themselves as associations. What has been revoked are their registrations with the HLURB after a finding that they failed to comply with all the requisites for registration under RA 9904. aDSIHc

In sum, petitioners failed to demonstrate any reason to deviate from the findings of the HLURB, as the administrative agency with specialized expertise on the matter, which findings were affirmed by the CA.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 24 September 2018 and the Amended Decision dated 3 December 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152643 are AFFIRMED.

Further, the Court resolves to:

1. NOTE the formal entry of appearance dated 30 July 2021 of Atty. Marisol M. Boiser of Boiser Law Firm as counsel for respondent, and GRANT counsel's request for service of Court processes at 414 M One Oasis Condominium, Ortigas Extension, Sta. Lucia, Pasig City; and

2. NOTE the compliance dated 09 March 2022 by counsel for respondent with the Resolution dated 01 December 2021, submitting a copy of the secretary's certificate showing that she is the name and appointed counsel for respondent.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 9-24.

2. Id. at 46-54; Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now also a Member of the Court) of the Special Fifteenth (15th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 27-38; Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin of the Special Former Special Fifteenth (15th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

4. Id. at 56-65.

5. Entitled "An Act Creating a Separate Engineering District in the Second Congressional District in the Province of Iloilo and Appropriating Funds therefor," effective 27 January 2001.

6. Rollo, pp. 56-65.

7. Id. at 66-74.

8. Id.

9. Id. at 91-93; Penned by HLURB Arbiter Al Matthew P. Umali.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 109

12. Id. at 109-115.

13. Id.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 46-47.

16. Id. at 50-53.

17. Id. at 29.

18. Id. at 29-37.

19. Id. at 15-17.

20. Id. at 144-145.

21. Id. at 154-162.

22. Id. at 163-164.

23. Id. at 165.

24. Id. at 166.

25. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. v. Uyecio, 584 Phil. 223, 229 (2008), citing Malonzo v. Commission on Elections, 336 Phil. 361 (1997).

26. By virtue of Republic Act No. 11201 enacted on 14 February 2019, the HLURB was reconstituted as the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC).

27. Rollo, pp. 34-36.

28. Id. at 144-145.

29. Id. at 154-162.