G.R. No. 167702, March 20, 2009
LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RANDOLPH C. LIMJOCO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lourdes Eristingcol is a homeowner in Urdaneta Village, Makati City, and a member of the Urdaneta Village Association Inc. (UVAI). She began constructing a house on her lot, which included a concrete canopy. UVAI, through its officers (including respondent Randolph Limjoco), imposed on her a ₱400,000 penalty for allegedly violating the association’s Construction Rules and Regulations (CRR) regarding the “Set Back Line” and barred her workers from entering the village. Eristingcol filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against UVAI and its officers, alleging the CRR provision was contrary to law and the penalty was unwarranted and excessive. The day after filing, the parties entered into a temporary settlement (an Undertaking) allowing her workers access. The defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because, under Executive Orders, jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes of homeowners associations lay with the Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation (HIGC, later transferred to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board or HLURB). The RTC denied the motion, applying the doctrine of laches from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, ruling the defendants voluntarily appeared and sought relief by signing the Undertaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Eristingcol appealed to the Supreme Court, impleading only Limjoco and not the other defendants.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC or the HLURB has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Eristingcol’s complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB has jurisdiction. The petition was initially susceptible to dismissal for failure to implead all indispensable parties (the other defendants from the RTC case). However, the Court addressed the merits to settle the jurisdictional issue. Examining the averments of the amended complaint, the Court found the case was an intra-corporate dispute. Eristingcol, as a member of UVAI, was challenging the association’s construction rules and the penalties imposed for their violation. This involved the internal affairs of the corporation (the homeowners association) and the relations between the association and its members. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 535, as amended by Executive Order No. 90, and Republic Act No. 8763, such disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB. The Court distinguished the case from Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, noting the defendants questioned the RTC’s jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity (filing a Motion to Dismiss just 15 days after the temporary settlement) and did not actively participate in seeking affirmative relief on the merits. The Undertaking was merely a provisional agreement to allow construction access and did not constitute a submission to the RTC’s jurisdiction for a final adjudication on the merits. Therefore, the doctrine of laches did not apply. The Court of Appeals’ decision was affirmed.