G.R. No. 152440 ; January 31, 2005
FELICITACION B. BORBAJO, petitioner, vs. HIDDEN VIEW HOMEOWNERS, INC., SPS. MARCELINA A. SARCON, ELY D. SARCON, ROBERTO ALVAREZ, CORAZON NOMBRADO, and GILBERT ANDRALES, in their personal capacities, respondents.

FACTS

Jose Bontuyan and the Solons owned an agricultural lot which they subdivided into residential lots, including three road lots. Bontuyan, as attorney-in-fact, sold these road lots to petitioner Felicitacion Borbajo and another buyer, who subsequently obtained titles. Bontuyan developed the subdivision (Hidden View Subdivision I) and later obtained an HLURB License to Sell. Borbajo later developed adjacent properties into new subdivisions (ST Ville Properties and Hidden View Subdivision II). The homeowners of Hidden View Subdivision I, upon hearing Borbajo claim ownership of the road lots and deny their right of way, constructed a guardhouse and blocked passage, preventing Borbajo’s construction vehicles from using the roads to access her projects. Borbajo filed an action for damages and injunction with the RTC.
The RTC granted a permanent injunction, ordering the homeowners not to close the roads and directing Borbajo to donate the road lots to Cebu City. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HLURB had primary jurisdiction over the dispute involving subdivision roads. Borbajo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over Borbajo’s action for injunction and damages concerning the use of the subdivision road lots.

RULING

Yes, the RTC had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the RTC’s permanent injunction. The core legal logic is the distinction between the regulatory jurisdiction of the HLURB and the general jurisdiction of regular courts. The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the sale of subdivision lots and the regulatory requirements imposed on developers and subdivisions. However, Borbajo’s complaint was essentially an action for injunction and damages rooted in a property dispute—specifically, her right as a titled owner to access her property against obstruction by the respondents. This is an action in personam against the homeowners in their personal capacities for allegedly blocking her lawful use of her own property. Such a case, which involves the enforcement of a property right and the recovery of damages from specific individuals for their acts, falls within the general jurisdiction of the regular courts under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The claim did not necessitate the expertise of the HLURB, as it did not primarily seek to enforce subdivision rules or contracts of sale but to restrain a private nuisance and vindicate a property right. The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC’s order for Borbajo to donate the lots was a superfluity with no legal basis, but this did not negate its valid jurisdiction to issue the injunction. The injunction was made permanent, subject to the outcome of a separate pending case concerning the road lots’ ownership.