G.R. No. 160795; June 27, 2008
CORINTHIAN GARDENS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES REYNALDO and MARIA LUISA TANJANGCO, and SPOUSES FRANK and TERESITA CUASO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents-spouses Tanjangco own adjacent lots in the Corinthian Gardens Subdivision, managed by petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. Respondents-spouses Cuaso own a lot adjacent to the Tanjangcos. Before constructing their house, the Cuasos, upon referral from Corinthian, engaged the services of Geodetic Engineer Democrito De Dios, who had previously conducted surveys for the subdivision developer, to perform a relocation survey. Corinthian also conducted periodic inspections during construction to ensure compliance with its rules. After completion, it was discovered that the Cuasos’ perimeter fence encroached on the Tanjangcos’ lot by 87 square meters.
The Tanjangcos filed a suit for Recovery of Possession with Damages against the Cuasos. The Cuasos, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Corinthian, the builder (C.B. Paraz), and Engr. De Dios, alleging negligence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Tanjangcos, finding the encroachment, but held the Cuasos as builders in good faith. It dismissed the third-party complaint against Corinthian and Engr. De Dios for lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the Cuasos in bad faith and holding Corinthian, the builder, and the engineer jointly negligent. Only Corinthian filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. jointly liable for damages despite the dismissal of the third-party complaint against it by the RTC.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and absolved Corinthian from liability. The Court held that the CA decision had become final and executory as to the Cuasos, C.B. Paraz, and Engr. De Dios, as they did not timely appeal. The fundamental rule is that a party who does not appeal from a decision cannot obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court. The Cuasos’ attempt to adopt Corinthian’s motion for reconsideration six months later was a belated and impermissible substitute for their own appeal. Consequently, the CA’s modification of the RTC judgment to impose liability on these non-appealing parties was a grave error, as the judgment in their favor had attained finality.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no basis to hold Corinthian liable for negligence. Corinthian’s duties, as outlined in its Manual of Rules and Regulations, were primarily regulatory and supervisory to ensure aesthetic and structural compliance within the subdivision. It was not an insurer of the accuracy of lot boundaries or surveys. The referral of Engr. De Dios did not constitute a warranty of his work, and its periodic inspections were not for the purpose of verifying property lines, a technical task properly belonging to a geodetic engineer. There was no evidence that Corinthian acted with gross negligence or bad faith in performing its limited functions.