GR L 56624; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982
DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. AYALA CORPORATION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Darnoc Realty Development Corporation acquired two lots in Legaspi Village from respondent Ayala Corporation. The Deed of Absolute Sale contained a restrictive covenant, annotated on the titles, limiting building height to twenty-three meters. Petitioner intended to construct a twenty-two-storey office building on the lots and submitted amended building plans to respondent for approval, as required by the restriction. Respondent refused approval, asserting the plans exceeded the height limitation. Petitioner, without first filing an action in the Court of First Instance, directly invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. It sought a declaration that the height restriction was unconstitutional and an order directing respondent to allow the proposed construction, arguing the restriction constituted a capricious exercise of a right Ayala no longer possessed and infringed upon petitioner’s constitutional right to use and enjoy its property.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over the petition to declare a contractual deed restriction unconstitutional and to compel its enforcement.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred solely by the Constitution or statute, not by party agreement. The Court’s original jurisdiction is limited to petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, concurrent with the Court of First Instance. Petitioner’s action did not properly fall under any of these writs. The core relief sought—nullification of a contractual provision and an order for specific performance—is essentially an action for declaratory relief and specific performance, which falls within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Certiorari and prohibition are unavailable as they act against tribunals, boards, or officers exercising judicial or ministerial functions, not to enforce or annul private contractual duties. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a contractual obligation. The mere possibility that a case might eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court does not justify a direct filing. The petition was therefore improperly filed.