G.R. No. 156686; July 27, 2011
NEW SUN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, Barangay Sun Valley, Parañaque City, Roberto Guevarra IN HIS CAPACITY AS Punong Barangay and MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, Respondents.

FACTS

The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Sun Valley issued BSV Resolution No. 98-096 on October 13, 1998, directing the New Sun Valley Homeowners Association, Inc. (NSVHAI) to open Rosemallow and Aster Streets to vehicular and pedestrian traffic daily, except from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., pursuant to its authority under the Local Government Code. The Resolution was to become executory within 72 hours upon receipt by the Association.
NSVHAI filed a Petition for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Permanent Injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0420. NSVHAI argued that the implementation would cause grave injustice and irreparable injury, as the subdivision was acquired for strictly residential purposes, privacy, and a peaceful neighborhood. It contended that opening the gates would not ease traffic congestion, would deteriorate peace and order, endanger safety, destroy roads and drainage not designed for heavy volume, and violate the homeowners’ equity and rights to a secure environment. NSVHAI later amended its petition, arguing the Barangay had no jurisdiction and that an ordinance, not a resolution, was required to open roads.
The RTC issued a 72-hour TRO on October 30, 1998, and later, by agreement, maintained the status quo for 17 more days. After a hearing on November 20, 1998, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction, prohibiting the implementation of the Resolution.
The Barangay filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the complaint stated no cause of action and the court lacked jurisdiction. It contended that the subdivision roads were part of the public domain, ownership of which is vested in the Republic, citing White Plains Association, Inc. vs. Legaspi, and that the power to open or close local roads is vested in local government units pursuant to an ordinance under Section 21 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). It also argued that NSVHAI failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Code.
The RTC dismissed the case in an Order dated August 17, 1999, essentially adopting the Barangay’s arguments. NSVHAI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 65559). The CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal in a Decision dated October 16, 2002, and denied NSVHAI’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 17, 2003. Hence, NSVHAI filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of NSVHAI’s petition, which challenged the Barangay Resolution directing the opening of subdivision streets, on the grounds of lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
The Court held that the RTC correctly dismissed the case. The core issue was the nature of the subdivision roads. Applying the doctrine established in White Plains Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that road lots in a subdivision are for public use and are considered public properties. They form part of the mandatory open space reserved for public use under P.D. No. 1216. Ownership is automatically vested in the State, and the donation to the local government unit is a mere formality. Therefore, Rosemallow and Aster Streets are public roads.
Consequently, the power to open or close such local public roads is vested in the local government unit, specifically under Section 21 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), which authorizes an LGU to permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction, pursuant to an ordinance. The Court noted that the Barangay acted through a resolution, not an ordinance. However, this procedural defect did not invalidate the RTC’s dismissal of the injunction suit, as NSVHAI’s action was essentially a collateral attack on the Barangay’s authority. The proper remedy for challenging the validity of the Barangay’s act (using a resolution instead of an ordinance) was a direct action for its annulment, not an injunction proceeding where NSVHAI claimed a clear and unmistakable right to keep the roads closed. Since the roads are public, NSVHAI, as a homeowners’ association, has no vested right to restrict public access.
Furthermore, the Court found that NSVHAI failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Under Sections 32 and 57 of the Local Government Code, the city mayor has the power to review Barangay resolutions. NSVHAI did not avail of this remedy before resorting to court action.
Thus, the RTC had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction, and the complaint correctly stated no cause of action. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the dismissal.