[ G.R. No. 83358. August 02, 1989 ] 257 Phil. 31
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 83358. August 02, 1989 ]
CARIDAY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS & FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
The central issue in this case is the proper interpretation of a provision in the Deed of Restrictions on the title of a lot in the Forbes Park Subdivision which binds the owner to use his lot “for residential purposes and not more than one single family residential building will be constructed thereon" (p. 35, Rollo) - a restriction that generally encumbers lots in the so-called “plush” residential subdivisions.
Forbes Park Association (hereinafter referred to as “FPA”) is a non-profit and non-stock corporation organized for the purpose of promoting and safeguarding the interests of the residents and lot owners in that subdivision who automatically become members of the association and are bound by its rules and regulations stipulated in the Deed of Restrictions annotated on the back of their certificates of title.
Cariday Investment Corporation (CARIDAY for brevity) is the owner of a residential building in the Forbes Park Subdivision, hence, a member of the FPA. On the back of its certificate of title, TCT No. S-91329 (Annex A, p. 56, Rollo), is annotated a “Deed of Restrictions” whose pertinent provisions are as follows:
“RESTRICTIONS
“1. The Property is subject to an easement of two meters within the lot and adjacent to the rear and two sides thereof for the purpose of drainage, sewerage water and other public facilities as may be necessary and desirable.
“. . .
“2. Subject to such amendments and additional restrictions, reservations, servitudes as the Forbes Park Association may from time to time adopt and prescribe the land described in this certificate of title is for a period of fifty (50) years from January 1, 1949 subject to the restrictions enumerated in Annex A of the Deed of Sale executed by Ayala Securities Corporation in favor of the registered owner among which are the following:
“. . .
“Lots may be only used for residential purposes and not more than one single family residential building will be constructed thereon except that separate servant’s quarters may be built.
“. . . .” (Emphasis supplied; p. 35, Rollo.)
The same restrictions are found in Section 1(b), Article IV of the association’s rules and regulations (pp. 170-185, Rollo) and are hereunder quoted:
“ART. VI. BUILDING RULES AND REGULATIONS
“Sec. 1. LOTS
“xxx xxx xxx
“b. One residential building per lot. Lots may be used only for residential purposes, and not more than one single- family residential building will be constructed on one lot, except that separate garage and servants’ quarters and bathhouses for swimming pools may be built. Should any member owning two (2) or more lots submit a plan of a residence astride two (2) or more lots owned by him, his property will be considered as one parcel for the purpose of application of the set?back line restriction so that this limitation shall be considered applicable only to the exterior boundaries of the property as though the lots were consolidated into one parcel. However, if later on his house is destroyed or removed then the 2-meter set-back line restriction shall be considered as restored to the boundaries of each lot of the subdivision plan.
“c. Use and occupancy of a house. The use and occupancy of houses and other improvements inside Forbes Park shall be exclusively for residence only of the owners and bona fide residents, their families, house guests, staff and domestics but never for commercial, business or office purposes, such as, but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, resorts, motels, condominiums, stores, clubs, schools, studios or any kind of office whatsoever.
In case of violation hereof, the Board of Governors shall, after at least 10 days previous notice in writing to the member/resident concerned, order the disconnection of the water service supplied to the latter by the Association’s deepwell pumps; Provided, however, that reconnection thereof shall only be made upon satisfactory showing that violation of this rule no longer exists and that the requisite actual cost of reconnection as estimated by the Association is duly deposited before such reconnection is made.” (Underscoring ours; pp. 36?37, Rollo.)
In June 1986, Cariday, with notice to the FPA, “repaired” its building (p. 42, Rollo). After inspection of the “repairs,” the FPA’s retained civil engineer reported that “additions or deletions were made in the existing residence.” A second inspection in May 1987 disclosed more violations of the restrictions. He observed that the building “can be used by more than one family.” (p. 78, Rollo.)
Cariday admitted that its building has the exterior appearance of a single family residence but it is designed inside to allow occupancy by two families.
The FPA demanded that corrections be made in the structure to conform with the restrictions.
Without making the corrections, Cariday, on July 1, 1987, leased one portion of the house to an Englishman, James Duvivier, who occupied the same on July 5, 1987. On August 1, 1987, Cariday leased the other half of the building to Procter and Gamble for the use of one of its American executives, Robert Haden, who notified the FPA that he would move in on September 2, 1987 (p. 74, Rollo).
In a letter dated September 7, 1987, Cariday also notified the FPA that Haden would be moving in with his furniture and household appliances and requested that the necessary clearance be issued for presentation to the subdivision’s security guards (p. 67, Rollo).
When Haden tried to move in on September 18, 1987, he was stopped by the security guards. In a letter dated September 19, 1987 and received by Cariday on September 21, 1987, the FPA advised Cariday that it would not allow Cariday to lease its house to more than one tenant as this would violate the rule regarding “one single-family residential restriction” (p. 68, Rollo). Because of the alleged “building violations,” the FPA threatened to disconnect the water service (which it supplies to the residents from its deep-well pumps) to Cariday’s property (p. 68, Rollo).
On September 28, 1987, Cariday filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, a complaint (p. 42, Rollo) for injunction and damages (Civil Case No. 17933). It prayed that, pending the trial of the case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ordering the FPA to desist from cutting-off the water supply to its building, or to reconnect the service if it has been cut-off, and, further, to desist from preventing its tenants’ ingress into and egress from its aforementioned building. Cariday alleged that if the FPA was not restrained, Cariday would not only lose its tenants but their health would be seriously endangered. As a matter of fact, on October 6, 1987, Procter and Gamble rescinded its lease contract with Cariday (p. 69, Rollo).
The FPA answered Cariday’s complaint and opposed the application for preliminary injunction. It alleged that under its rules and regulations, it is empowered to disconnect water services whenever there is a deviation from previously approved plans and specifications of buildings and for violation of the “single-family residential building restriction” (p. 94, Rollo).
On October 21, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon Cariday’s filing of a P50,000-bond (pp. 105-106, Rollo). The FPA filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court (p. 119, Rollo). In due time, it sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 13965) alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals, after hearing the parties, annulled the writ of injunction. It held:
“x x x. The construction of a residential house as a single-family dwelling unit defines its use by a single family, in the same way that its construction as a duplex house defines its use by two families. Indeed, by prohibiting the use of houses within the subdivision as hotels, motels, condominiums, and the like, sec. 1 (c) makes clear that the requirement in sec. 1(b), that only one single-family residential building may be constructed on a lot, is intended to limit its use and occupancy by one family. The use of a house as hotel, motel or condominium violates the concept of ‘one single-family’ residential house per lot, as much as the construction of more than one building on one lot.
“x x x. The ‘one single family’ residential house per lot rule is violated not only when one house is used by more than one family but also when several buildings, each one of which is used by one or more families, are built on one lot.” (pp. 37-38, Rollo.)
The Court of Appeals upheld the right of the FPA to prohibit the entry of additional tenants into Cariday’s building and to disconnect the water service for violation of the restrictions:
“x x x. With respect to the refusal of the FPA to allow the entry of additional tenant into the building in question, suffice it to say that its authority is clearly provided for in art. VI, sec. 14 which provides as follows:
‘Sec. 14. MOVING IN OR MOVING OUT OF FORBES PARK. Anyone who wishes to move into any residential home of the village must, before doing so, first obtain the necessary written clearance from the office of the Association for presentation to the security guards, and any occupant of a house within the village and who wishes to move out of the premises he or she occupies should give a written notification to the Association.’
“We therefore hold that Cariday Investment is without any right to let its premises to more than one tenant and that in threatening to disconnect the water service and in preventing more than one tenant to move into the premises to enforce its rules, FPA acted within powers under the rules that are binding on its members. Consequently, Cariday Investment is not entitled to an injunction.” (p. 38, Rollo.)
In its petition for review of the Appellate Court’s decision, Cariday avers that while it is indeed bound by the restriction to construct only “one residential building” on its lot, “nowhere in the rules and regulations is there a categorical prohibition and/or restriction preventing it from exercising its rights to let its residential building to two or more tenants” (p. 19, Rollo).
We find the petitioner’s interpretation of the restriction unacceptable. The restriction clearly defines not only the type and number of structures (one residential building) that may be built on each lot, but also the number of families (a single family) that may use it as a residence. Indeed, the restriction of “one x x x residential building” per lot would have been sufficient, without incorporating the additional restriction of “a single family,” (p. 35, Rollo) if the purpose, as petitioner contends, were only to limit the type of building but not its use or occupancy.
We are persuaded that the purpose of the restriction is to avoid overcrowding both in the houses and in the subdivision which would result in pressure upon the common facilities such as water, power and telephone connections, accelerate the deterioration of the roads, and create problems of sanitation and security in the subdivision. As correctly perceived by the petitioner itself, the restrictions are “for aesthetic consideration and for the preservation of the peace, beauty, tranquility and serenity of living at Forbes Park” (p. 306, Rollo).
Logic dictates that as the building rules and regulations of the FPA expressly prohibit the construction of buildings for multiple occupancy, such as hotels, motels, and condominiums, that prohibition may not be circumvented by building a house with the external appearance of a single family dwelling but whose interior is designed for multiple occupany. It is an elementary rule of reason that what may not be done directly, may not also be done indirectly.
However, recognizing Filipino custom and the cohesive nature of our family ties, the concept of a single-family dwelling may embrace the extended family which includes married children who continue to be sheltered in the family home until they are financially able to establish homes of their own. But leasing one’s house in Forbes Park, as the petitioner has done, to two or more tenant families who are not related to the owner, nor to each other, would be impermissible under the one-single family restriction recorded on the title of the property.
WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the petition for review, We resolved to deny it, with costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, and Regalado, JJ., concur. Narvasa, J., I join in the dissents of Justice Gutierrez and Justice Medialdea. Gutierrez, Jr., J., Please see dissent. Cruz, J., No part. My son represented private respondent. Paras, J., No part. My wife concurred in CA decision. Gancayco, J., I join the in dissent of Justice Medialdea. Padilla, J., No part; member of FPA. Medialdea, J., Please see dissent.