Garin vs. City of Muntinlupa

A dispute between a homeowners association and a non-member homeowner over clearance and assessments is an intra-association dispute within the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, and a constitutional challenge to the ordinance requiring such clearance need not be resolved where the case can be decided on statutory grounds.

Artoo P. Garin owned a lot in Katarungan Village in Muntinlupa City, where Katarungan Village Homeowners Association, Inc. operated as the homeowners association. Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047, Section 10, listed a homeowners association clearance among the prerequisites for approval of projects and issuance of building permits. Republic Act No. 9904, the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations governed membership, rights to basic services, association powers over structures, and Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board authority over intra-association controversies.

Artoo P. Garin, a resident of Pasig City, wanted to build a house on his property in Katarungan Village in Muntinlupa City. Under Section 10 of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047, approval of projects required compliance with listed requirements, including a duly accomplished and notarized application form, plan, lot plan with vicinity map, transfer certificate of title, barangay clearance or resolution, homeowners association clearance, deed of sale, and certification from MDCC/PHILVOCS. Garin requested clearance from Katarungan Village Homeowners Association, Inc., while clarifying that he was not a member of the association.

Katarungan refused to issue the clearance until Garin signed up for membership and paid assessments amounting to P72,000.00. Because he could not secure the clearance, the City of Muntinlupa refused to process his building permit application. According to Garin, his deed of sale contained no annotation on automatic membership, so no privity of contract existed between him and Katarungan.

Thereafter, Garin filed a Petition for Mandamus with application for preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, seeking to compel the City of Muntinlupa to accept his application for processing even without the clearance and to declare Section 10 unconstitutional insofar as it tasked homeowners associations with issuing clearances. The trial court found that Garin had not established a clear right or substantial injury since construction of his abode had not yet commenced, and suspended the case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904 pending recourse to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On reconsideration, the trial court maintained that the alleged suppression of rights was caused by Katarungan's imposition, not the ordinance itself.

• Exhaustion and Judicial Review: Petitioner argued that the constitutionality of Section 10 of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 could be addressed without first exhausting administrative remedies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, and that the convoluted procedure recommended only pressured applicants to capitulate rather than pursue claims of unjust imposition and derogation of the constitutional right to disassociate.
• No Contract and Right to Disassociate: Petitioner maintained that his deed of sale had no annotation on automatic membership, meaning no contract existed between him and respondent Katarungan, supporting his claimed right not to join.
• Invalid Delegation and Abuse: Petitioner argued that respondent Katarungan had abused its delegated power as the necessary consequence of undefined authority conferred by the Ordinance, which prescribed no specific limit or parameter, amounting to an absolute, unbridled power and invalid delegation of legislative authority.

• Payment for Services: Respondent Katarungan countered that if petitioner wanted to avail of its services, he must pay required dues, fees, and charges, with refusal grounded on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904 empowering associations to cause compliance as to structures to be built, and Section 72 prohibiting deprivation of basic community services only where dues, charges, and fees have been duly paid.
• Police Power and Presumption of Validity: Respondent Katarungan argued that the right to abode could be limited by the general welfare clause under Section 16 of the Local Government Code and that Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 was presumed a valid exercise of police power.
• Intra-Association Jurisdiction: Respondent Katarungan reiterated that the case involved an intra-association dispute properly heard by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, not the regular courts.
• Source of Authority: Respondents City of Muntinlupa and Mayor Fresnedi argued that it was not the City or the assailed Ordinance but national law, Republic Act No. 9904 implemented by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, that conferred authority to issue clearances and impose fees, citing Section 5(c) of HLURB Resolution No. R-771, series of 2004, and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9904 requiring homeowners to pay necessary fees, charges, and special assessments.
• Alternative Validity and Improper Remedy: Respondents City of Muntinlupa and Mayor Fresnedi maintained that even if authority derived from the Ordinance, it would still be valid under Article III, Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, and that petitioner resorted to an improper remedy because the questioned Order was interlocutory and not appealable.

• Propriety of Remedy: Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is the correct remedy to question the Regional Trial Court's Orders.
• Requisites of Judicial Review: Whether petitioner Garin has complied with all the requisites of judicial review to question the constitutionality of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047.
• Primary Jurisdiction: Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in ruling that primary jurisdiction over the case lies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
• Non-Member Dispute: Whether the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board has jurisdiction over a dispute between a non-member homeowner and the homeowners' association.

• Propriety of Remedy: Yes. Though styled as temporary suspension, the Order effectively dismissed the mandamus case indefinitely unless petitioner filed with the administrative agency, and review was sought on errors of law.
• Requisites of Judicial Review: No. While actual controversy, standing, and earliest opportunity were present, the lis mota requisite was absent because the cause of action could be resolved without passing on constitutionality.
• Primary Jurisdiction: No error. Intra-association controversies fall under Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board jurisdiction as the agency with technical expertise, pursuant to Section 20(d) of Republic Act No. 9904.
• Non-Member Dispute: Yes. A controversy between an association and a non-member homeowner over rights, duties, and obligations relating to clearance and assessments is within Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board jurisdiction under the law and HLURB Resolution No. 963-17.

• Propriety of Remedy: As a general rule only final judgments or orders are appealable under Rule 45, while interlocutory orders are questioned under Rule 65. The September 5, 2014 Order denied mandatory preliminary injunction and suspended the case pending exhaustion with the HLURB. Because the suspension became indefinite and presumed no further trial court action unless petitioner filed administratively, it operated as a dismissal without explicitly saying so, making the Rule 45 recourse proper, particularly as errors of law were raised.
• Requisites of Judicial Review: Judicial review requires an actual case or controversy, legal standing, raising the constitutional question at the earliest opportunity, and that resolution be the very lis mota. The first three were satisfied by denial of the permit application, direct injury to petitioner as homeowner denied clearance, and prompt raising before the trial court. The fourth failed because Section 10 applied to all associations city-wide, while the alleged illegality lay in Katarungan's specific demand for membership and P72,000.00; petitioner's bare allegation of no automatic-membership provision was unsupported, the assessments could include clearance and basic-service charges which even a non-member must pay under Section 5, and requiring association clearance was within police power under Section 10(j) and (k) of Republic Act No. 9904.
• Primary Jurisdiction: Intra-association disputes are for the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board under Section 20(d) of Republic Act No. 9904, whose decisions are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals, and under Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations. Section 4(w) defines intra-association dispute to include controversies intrinsically connected with regulation of associations or internal affairs. Petitioner's grievance concerned whether Katarungan properly imposed Republic Act No. 9904 in conditioning clearance, which had to be determined administratively before reaching constitutionality.
• Non-Member Dispute: Republic Act No. 9904 differentiates a homeowner under Section 3(j) — owner or purchaser of a lot, among others — from a member, with Section 6 providing a homeowner shall be qualified to be a member and Section 22(a) and Section 9 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations making membership compulsory only where provided in title, contract, or award. The controversy involved internal affairs and exercise of respective rights, duties, and obligations, for which the Implementing Rules and Regulations did not require membership of a party. HLURB Resolution No. 963-17, Rule 2, Section 6.2.4 expressly vested arbiters with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the association and homeowners or other beneficial users.

• Final vs. Interlocutory Order Treated as Dismissal — An order styled as temporary suspension pending administrative exhaustion is appealable as a dismissal where it indefinitely prevents further trial court action unless the party files elsewhere. Applied here to sustain a Rule 45 petition because the suspension created the presumption the mandamus case would never proceed without HLURB recourse.
• Requisites of Judicial Review and Lis Mota — Exercise of judicial review requires (a) actual case or controversy, (b) legal standing, (c) constitutional question raised at earliest opportunity, and (d) resolution of the constitutional question as the very lis mota, absolutely necessary to determination. Applied to decline constitutional adjudication where the dispute could be resolved on whether Katarungan's clearance conditions violated Republic Act No. 9904.
• Primary Jurisdiction of HLURB over Intra-Association Controversies — Cases involving intra-association controversies fall under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, the agency with technical expertise, under Section 20(d) of Republic Act No. 9904, including controversies intrinsically connected with regulation of associations or internal affairs under Section 4(w) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Applied to require prior HLURB determination of the legality of conditioning clearance on membership and assessments.
• Homeowner vs. Member; Non-Member Within HLURB Jurisdiction — A homeowner under Republic Act No. 9904 includes an owner or purchaser of a lot, while membership remains qualified and generally optional unless imposed by title, contract for purchase, or CMP or similar tenurial award; nevertheless, disputes between the association and homeowners or other beneficial users over respective rights, duties, and obligations fall within HLURB exclusive jurisdiction under HLURB Resolution No. 963-17. Applied in Garin vs. City of Muntinlupa to hold that non-membership did not defeat HLURB jurisdiction.
• Association Powers and Homeowner Duties — Every homeowner may enjoy basic community services upon payment of necessary fees and charges under Section 5, and associations may cause compliance with building, zoning, and local-ordinance requirements and regulate establishments affecting the subdivision under Section 10(j) and (k) of Republic Act No. 9904. Applied to sustain a city requirement for association clearance and to distinguish the right to disassociate from refusal to pay for clearance and basic services.

• "A dispute between a homeowners association and a non-member homeowner is an intra-association dispute; thus, jurisdiction belongs to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board." — States the core jurisdictional ratio extending HLURB authority to non-member homeowners.
• "Clearly, petitioner's cause of action is against respondent Katarungan, not the City of Muntinlupa." — Explains why constitutional attack on the ordinance was unnecessary, the injury having flowed from the association's own clearance conditions.
• "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED. Likewise, the instant case is temporarily suspended pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by petitioner involving the issue herein with the HLURB." — Reproduces the trial court's dispositive suspension construed on review as an effective dismissal appealable under Rule 45.

• JAKA Investments Corporation vs. Urdaneta Village Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 204187 and 206606, April 1, 2019 — Followed as controlling for the proposition that intra-association controversies belong to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board as the agency with technical expertise.
• Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission, 651 Phil. 374 (2010) — Cited, together with the cases therein referenced, for the four requisites of judicial review, particularly the lis mota requirement.
• Senate of the Philippines vs. Ermita, 522 Phil. 1 (2006) — Cited through Biraogo as authority for the requisites of judicial review.
• Francisco vs. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 842 (2003) — Cited through Biraogo as authority for the requisites of judicial review.

• Section 10, Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 — Listed homeowners association clearance among requirements for project approval; challenged as unconstitutional delegation, but constitutional resolution was deemed unnecessary because the dispute concerned Katarungan's specific conditions.
• Section 20(d), Republic Act No. 9904 — Vested HLURB with authority to hear and decide intra-association and inter-association controversies, appealable directly to the Court of Appeals; basis for primary jurisdiction and suspension pending exhaustion.
• Sections 5, 10(j) and (k), and 22(a), Republic Act No. 9904 — Section 5 conditioned enjoyment of basic services on payment of fees; Section 10(j)-(k) empowered associations over building compliance and establishments affecting the subdivision; Section 22(a) prohibited compelling membership absent deed restriction, purchase contract, or CMP or similar award; applied to distinguish disassociation from nonpayment and to test Katarungan's demands.
• Sections 4(w), 5(c), 9, 11, and 72, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904; Section 5(c), HLURB Resolution No. R-771, series of 2004 — Defined intra-association disputes, allowed reasonable fees on members and non-member residents availing of facilities and services, made membership optional absent conveyance or title provision, and barred deprivation of services where dues were paid; invoked to support HLURB competence and Katarungan's fee defense.
• Rule 2, Section 6.2.4, HLURB Resolution No. 963-17 — Gave arbiters exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the association and homeowners or other beneficial users on respective rights, duties, and obligations; basis for holding non-member status did not oust HLURB jurisdiction.

Hernando, J., Inting, J., and Delos Santos, J., concur. Rosario, J., on official leave.