GR 164795; (April, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164795 April 19, 2017
TGN REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. VILLA TERESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner TGN Realty Corporation developed the Villa Teresa Subdivision in Angeles City. Respondent Villa Teresa Homeowners Association, Inc. (VTHAI), representing the residents, sent a demand letter in 1997 alleging petitioner’s failure to complete subdivision improvements. The complaints included the non-opening of certain streets, incomplete perimeter fencing, inadequate drainage, lack of guard houses and sidewalks, non-development of open space, and unauthorized land use. VTHAI claimed petitioner refused to discuss these obligations.
Petitioner countered that many obligations were either fulfilled, rendered impossible by circumstances like the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, or not part of its commitments. It argued that some streets were part of Holy Angel University’s property, fencing was damaged by natural calamities, and the open space was never advertised for development. The dispute was elevated to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, as subdivision developer, has complied with its obligations under the approved subdivision plan and pertinent laws.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of the HLURB, the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals that TGN Realty failed to complete the mandatory subdivision improvements. The legal logic rests on the developer’s statutory and contractual duties under Presidential Decree No. 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree). The law imposes an affirmative obligation on the owner/developer to complete the subdivision as per the approved plan, including all necessary infrastructure and recreational facilities, within a reasonable time from project commencement.
The Court found petitioner’s justifications, such as natural calamities and alleged lack of prior commitment, unavailing. The duty to complete is absolute and not excused by such events, which do not constitute force majeure in this context as they did not render compliance permanently impossible. The developer’s failure to develop the open space, complete fencing, and provide adequate drainage, among others, constituted a direct violation of its legal and contractual obligations to the lot buyers. The sustained findings of administrative agencies, possessing technical expertise, are accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case.