G.R. No. 141961; January 23, 2002
Sta. Clara Homeowners’ Association, et al., petitioners, vs. Spouses Victor Ma. Gaston and Lydia Gaston, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Victor and Lydia Gaston, residents of Sta. Clara Subdivision in Bacolod City since 1974, filed a complaint for damages with injunction against the Sta. Clara Homeowners’ Association (SCHA) and others. They alleged that upon purchasing their lot, there was no requirement for mandatory membership in any association. They had always been non-members and were issued “non-member” gatepass stickers for vehicle access. In March 1998, SCHA passed a resolution stating only members in good standing would be issued stickers. Subsequently, the Gastons and their son were repeatedly subjected to identification checks and, on one occasion, Victor Gaston was barred from entering the subdivision by security guards, causing them moral damages.
The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction. They contended the dispute was intra-corporate, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC, now Home Guaranty Corporation). Their basis was that SCHA’s Articles of Incorporation and By-laws provided that all subdivision homeowners automatically become members. They argued the Gastons, as lot owners, were therefore automatic members since 1974, making the conflict an internal corporate matter.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC correctly denied the Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action.

RULING

Yes, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct. A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the material allegations of the complaint for the purpose of testing its sufficiency. The Gastons’ complaint explicitly alleged they never agreed to, nor considered themselves, members of SCHA. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Since the complaint asserts a dispute between non-members and the association, it cannot be classified as an intra-corporate controversy over which the HIGC would have exclusive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court emphasized that membership in a homeowners’ association is fundamentally voluntary. It arises from consent, a meeting of minds, and cannot be compulsorily imposed by a unilateral declaration in corporate documents upon a person who has not agreed to be bound. The provision in SCHA’s Articles and By-laws declaring all homeowners automatic members cannot bind the Gastons, who consistently repudiated such membership from the start. Their mere residence in the subdivision and receipt of certain benefits do not constitute implied consent to membership. Therefore, no intra-corporate relationship exists to oust the RTC of its general jurisdiction over the action for damages. The complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for the alleged unlawful acts of barring access to their property.