GR 187751; (November, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187751; November 22, 2010
EDNA EUGENIO, MARY JEAN GREGORIO, RENATO PAJARILLO, ROGELIO VILLAMOR, Petitioners, vs. STA. MONICA RIVERSIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association, a community association registered with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), sought to acquire the land it occupied under the Community Mortgage Program (CMP). The CMP, governed by Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), enables legally organized associations of underprivileged citizens to purchase land through community ownership. Respondent negotiated with the landowner, Hi-Marketing Corporation, and complied with all CMP requirements, including obtaining local government approval for its subdivision plan.
Petitioners, who were occupants of a portion of the land, were invited to join respondent association to avail of the CMP benefits but refused, having formed their own unaccredited organization. After petitioners declined subsequent invitations, respondent demanded they vacate the premises. Upon their refusal, respondent filed a complaint for ejectment/eviction before the HLURB. Petitioners contested the HLURB’s jurisdiction, arguing the dispute did not fall under the agency’s authority as defined by its rules, and questioned the association’s membership composition and leadership.
ISSUE
Whether the HLURB has jurisdiction over the ejectment complaint filed by the homeowners association against petitioners, who are non-members refusing to join the CMP.
RULING
Yes, the HLURB has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the HLURB Arbiter, Board of Commissioners, Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic rests on the HLURB’s regulatory powers under Presidential Decree No. 957, as expanded by Executive Order No. 535, and the specialized nature of the CMP. The HLURB is vested with the authority to regulate and supervise homeowners associations, a power that carries with it the incidental authority to resolve disputes necessary to enforce the association’s rights and interests under programs like the CMP.
The Court emphasized that the CMP is a distinctive social housing concept where benefits are exclusive to association members. Petitioners, by refusing membership, voluntarily excluded themselves from these benefits. Consequently, the HLURB’s power to oversee the association’s management includes the ancillary power to order the exclusion of non-members from the program and the consequent eviction to facilitate the project. This falls within the HLURB’s expertise over subdivision and condominium projects and homeowners associations. The eviction is a necessary incident of petitioners’ exclusion, as their continued occupation without assuming the obligations of membership would undermine the collective community purchase under the CMP. The petition was denied.