North Greenhills Association (NGA) v. Morales G.R. No.

222821, August 9, 2012  NGA moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied by the OP.
 Aggrieved, NGA filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the
Factual Antecedents CA, arguing that the OP erred in its findings.
 The CA affirmed the ruling of the OP. It found no error on the part of the OP in
affirming the characterization of the restrooms built as nuisance per accidens (by
 Atty. Morales is a resident of North Greenhills Subdivision. His house is located adjacent
chance/incidental) considering that the structure posed sanitary issues which could
to McKinley Park, an open space/playground area owned and operated by NGA. He has a
adversely affect not only Atty. Morales, but also his entire household; that even if there
personal access door, which he built through a wall separating his house from the park,
existed a perimeter wall between the park and Atty. Morales' home, the odor
when unlocked, opens directly into the park.
emanating from the restroom could easily find its way to the dining area, and
 NGA, an association composed of members of the subdivision, organized to promote and
the foul and noxious smell would make it very difficult and annoying for the
advance the best interests, general welfare, prosperity, and safeguard the well-being of
residents of the house to eat; and that the proximity of the restroom to Atty. Morales'
the owners, lessees and occupants of North Greenhills, is the undisputed owner of the
house placed the people residing therein at a greater risk of contracting diseases both
park.
from improperly disposed waste and human excrements, as well as from flies,
 NGA started constructing a public restroom intended to serve the needs of park guests
mosquitoes and other insects, should NGA fail to maintain the cleanliness of the
and members of NGA. Said restroom was constructed alongside the concrete wall
structures.
separating the house of Atty. Morales from the park.
 The CA stated that NGA's fear of being exposed to outsiders and criminals because Atty.
 Atty. Morales filed a complaint before the HLURB objecting the construction and amended
Morales' access was unfounded. It pointed out that the door had been in existence for
his complaint additionally seeking the demolition of the pavilion which was then being
more than three decades and that if dangers truly existed, NGA should have taken
built.
immediate action and blocked the side access years earlier. It then pointed out other
 In his Amended Complaint, Atty. Morales alleged that for a period spanning 33 years,
ways to remedy the security concerns of NGA, such as placing a wall strategically placed
he had an open, continuous, immediate, and unhampered access to the subdivision park
at the border of the park or additional guards to patrol the vicinity.
through his side door, which also served as an exit door in case of any eventuality; that
having such access to the park was one of the considerations why he purchased the lot;
As to the counterclaim of NGA for association dues, the CA held that the claim was in the
that the construction of the pavilion was illegal because it violated his right to immediate
nature of a permissive counterclaim, which was correctly dismissed by the OP.
access to the park, Presidential Decree No. 957 and the Deed of Donation of Ortigas &
 NGA moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied by the CA.
Co. Ltd., which required the park to be maintained as an open area; and that the
 Hence, this petition.
restroom constructed by NGA was a nuisance per se (in it self).
GROUNDS:
 NGA, in its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, rejected the assertions of Atty.
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN COMPLETELY DISREGARDING
Morales. NGA contended that as the absolute owner of the park, it had the absolute
THE HLURB'S LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE.
right to fence the property and impose reasonable conditions for the use thereof by both
1.1. RESPONDENT MORALES FAILED TO ALLEGE IN HIS COMPLAINT (OR AMENDED
its members and third parties; that the construction of the restroom was for the use and
COMPLAINT) THAT HE IS A MEMBER OF NGA - A FATAL JURISDICTIONAL
benefit of all NGA members, including Atty. Morales; and that Atty. Morales' use of a side
DEFECT FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY LAY THE PREDICATE THAT WOULD HAVE
entrance to the park for 33 years could not have ripened into any right because easement
ENABLED THE HLURB TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT ACTION.
of right of way could not be acquired by prescription. NGA likewise sought the payment of
1.2. IN THE CASE OF STA. CLARA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION V. GASTON (G.R.
P878,778.40 corresponding to the annual membership dues which Atty. Morales had not
NO. 141961, JANUARY 23, 2002), THE HONORABLE COURT RULED THAT
been paying since 1980.
WHERE THE BODY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED IN THE NOW HLURB FAILS
 HLURB Arbiter conducted an ocular inspection of the park and noted that the construction
TO MENTION THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS A MEMBER OF THE
started by NGA blocked Atty. Morales' side access to the park.
ASSOCIATION HE IS SUING, SUCH COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED
 HLURB Arbiter rendered a Decision ordering respondent of the removal of the
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
pavilion and the relocation of the common toilet in a place where it will not be a
1.3. PETITIONER NGA'S CLAIM FOR UNPAID ASSOCIATION DUES DOES NOT
nuisance to any resident. Respondents are further directed to remove the obstruction
PRECLUDE IT FROM ASSAILING RESPONDENT'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE NGA.
to the side door of the complainant.
1.4. IN THE CASE OF GREGORIO C. JAVELOSA V. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. NO.
 NGA appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners (HLURB Board). HLURB
124292, DECEMBER 10, 1996), THE HONORABLE COURT RULED THAT "IT IS
Board modified the ruling of the HLURB Arbiter, the decision of the Regional Office
SETTLED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS OVER THE SUBJECT
is MODIFIED. Respondent NGA is ordered to relocate the restroom constructed
MATTER OF LITIGATION IS DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
or being constructed in the McKinley Park away from the walls of any resident
COMPLAINT. IT IS EQUALLY SETTLED THAT AN ERROR OF JURISDICTION
and where it will not block complainant's side door access to the park.
CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND EVEN FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
 NGA appealed to the Office of the President (OP). OP rendered its decision, affirming
APPEAL."
in toto (as a whole) the ruling of the HLURB Board.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED AND IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN NUISANCE. AS DISCUSSED, HOWEVER, RESPONDENT UTTERLY FAILED TO
IN RULING THAT THE TOILET BUILT BY NGA AT THE MCKINLEY PARK IS DISCHARGE SUCH BURDEN.
A NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS, ON THE BASIS OF MERE SPECULATION, 4.3. ARTICLE 430 OF THE CIVIL CODE GRANTS PETITIONER NGA OF ITS STATUTORY
SUPPOSITION AND PURE CONJECTURE, CONSIDERING THE TOTAL LACK OF RIGHT TO FENCE OFF HIS PROPERTY. ART. 430 STATES THAT "EVERY OWNER
EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE SO. MAY ENCLOSE OR FENCE HIS LAND OR TENEMENTS BY MEANS OF WALLS,
2.1. RESPONDENT ATTY. MORALES DID NOT SET OUT TO PROVE THAT THE TOILET DITCHES, LIVE OR DEAD HEDGES, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS WITHOUT
ADJACENT HIS HOUSE INJURED HIM OR THAT FOUL ODOR EMANATED FROM IT DETRIMENT TO SERVITUDES CONSTITUTED THEREON."
BECAUSE HE MISTAKENLY ALLEGED THAT THE TOIILET WAS A NUISANCE PER 4.4. MOREOVER, ARTICLE 429 OF THE CIVIL CODE LIKEWISE GRANTS PETITIONER
SE. NGA THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM ACCESS TO AND ENJOYMENT OF
2.2. BY FAILING TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE TOILET, IN ANY WAY, ANNOYED ITS PROPERTY.
RESPONDENT'S SENSES, OR THAT FOUL ODOR EMANATED FROM IT, OR THAT 5. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER
IT POSED SANITARY ISSUES DETRIMENTAL TO HIS FAMILY'S HEALTH - THE NGA'S COUNTERCLAIM TO COLLECT ON RESPONDENT'S UNPAID ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT TOILET CANNOT BE LEGALLY CONSIDERED NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS. DUES FOR THE PAST THIRTY-THREE (33) YEARS, IS NOT COMPULSORY BUT
2.3. INDEED, A CURSORY VIEW OF THE PERTINENT DISCUSSION IN THE ASSAILED MERELY PERMISSIVE.
DECISION REVEALS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SADLY TOOK THE PATH OF 5.1. AS A PERSON SUING NGA FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS AN ALLEGED
SPECULATION, SUPPOSITION AND PURE CONJECTURE IN JUSTIFYING ITS MEMBER THEREOF, NGA'S DEFENSE WILL, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, INVOLVE
DECISION. THE CONTEST OF SUCH RIGHT. IN ORDER FOR NGA TO CONTEST
3. THE ASSAILED 13 MARCH 2015 DECISION IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS AS IT IS RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO USE THE PARK AS A MEMBER OF NGA, THE LATTER
BASED ON GRAVE MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS AND OF THE EVIDENCE - OR HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RAISE HIS NON-PAYMENT OF
THE TOTAL LACK OF IT - ON RECORD. MEMBERSHIP DUES IN ORDER TO ATTACK HIS RIGHT TO USE THE PARK,
3.1. INDEED, A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WOULD REVEAL THAT THERE WAS NO WHICH RIGHT INEXTRICABLY ARISES OUT OF HIS STANDING AS AN ALLEGED
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT DEMONSTRATING MEMBER OF NGA.
THAT THE SUBJECT TOILET HAS CAUSED PHYSICAL ANNOYANCE OR 5.2. AS A MATTER OF FACT, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9904, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
DISCOMFORT TO HIM. NO TESTIMONY HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT TO THE "MAGNA CARTA FOR HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS"
HLURB OR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SHOWING THAT THE TOILET MAKES IT A CONDITION SINE QUA NON THAT THE HOMEOWNER MUST PAY THE
EMITTED ANY FOUL SMELL, OR ODOR, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, ANNOYED ASSOCIATION FEES AND CHARGES BEFORE HE CAN ENJOY ITS FACILITIES. 11
RESPONDENT MORALES EVERY TIME HE WOULD EAT IN HIS DINING AREA.
3.2. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THE RESPONDENT DID ISSUES
NOT EVEN SUBMIT A POSITION PAPER BEFORE THE HLURB TO ATTEST TO AND
PROVE SUCH FACTUAL MATTERS.
1. WHETHER THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE HLURB HAD JURISDICTION OVER
3.3. IN THE VERY CASE CITED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, SMART
THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ATTY. MORALES; YES
COMMUNICATIONS V. ALDECOA (G.R. NO. 166330, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013), THE
2. WHETHER THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE RESTROOM BUILT BY NGA INSIDE
HONORABLE COURT STRUCK DOWN THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT AND
THE MCKINLEY PARK IS A NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS; NO
PRONOUNCED THAT A DECISION THAT DECLARES A THING TO BE A
3. WHETHER NGA HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK ATTY. MORALES' ACCESS TO THE PARK;
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL EVIDENCE
NO.
AND NOT BY MERE CONJECTURES OR SUPPOSITIONS.
4. WHETHER THE CA CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE COUNTERCLAIM OF NGA AGAINST
4. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING RESPONDENT ATTY.
ATTY. MORALES FOR UNPAID ASSOCIATION DUES WAS A PERMISSIVE
MORALES' UNBRIDLED ACCESS TO MCKINLEY PARK, EFFECTIVELY
COUNTERCLAIM. YES.
CONSTITUTING AN EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT ANY BASIS - AS
AGAINST THE CLEAR STATUTORY RIGHT OF PETITIONER NGA, AS THE OWNER
OF MCKINLEY PARK TO FENCE AND PROTECT ITS PROPERTY, GRANTED UNDER The Court partly grants the petition.
ARTICLES 429 AND 430 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
4.1. CONTRARY TO THE ASSAILED DECISION, IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON The Ruling of the Court
PETITIONER NGA TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF ITS ACT OF CONSTRUCTING THE
SUBJECT TOILET ON ITS OWN PROPERTY. INDEED, THIS IS A BASIS On Jurisdiction
STATUTORY RIGHT OF NGA AS AN "OWNER". Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
4.2. RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, BEING THE PROPONENT OF THE ACTION law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
TO DECLARE THE TOILET A NUISANCE, IS THE ONE SADDLED BY LAW WITH statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVING THAT THE STRUCTURE BUILT BY NGA IS A
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is The CA in disposing the case, ruled that the restroom posed sanitary issues to Atty. Morales
determined from the allegations contained in the complaint, irrespective of whether and is, therefore, a nuisance per accidens. Such is a finding of fact, which is generally
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted conclusive upon the Court, because it is not its function to analyze and weigh the
therein. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction remains vested evidence all over again. There are, however, well-recognized exceptions. These are:
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of
the claims asserted therein. (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
Relative thereto is the rule that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
raised at any stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be acquired through a (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of
of the court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant
raised for the first time on appeal. and the appellee;
(7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court;
NGA claims that the HLURB never had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty. Morales (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
considering that there was no allegation that he was member of the association, entitling him which they are based;
to claim the use of the latter's facilities including the right of access to McKinley Park. (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and
Citing Sta. Clara Homeowner's Association v. Gaston, NGA asserts that for HLURB to acquire reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
jurisdiction over disputes among members of an association, it is a requirement that the (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
allegation of membership must be clear in the complaint, otherwise, no authority to hear and and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
decide the case is vested in the concerned agency. Membership in a homeowners' association (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
is voluntary and cannot be unilaterally forced by a provision in the association's articles of disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different
incorporation or by-laws, which the alleged member did not agree to be bound to. conclusion.

In this case, it appears that Atty. Morales, by filing his complaint as a member whose rights NGA avers that the case falls under the said exceptions considering that no proof was ever
have been allegedly violated, has satisfied such requirement. His status as a member has not presented to prove that the restroom was a nuisance per accidens. Absent such evidence,
been questioned. It is worthy to note that NGA, in its counterclaim, demanded the payment the CA's finding was only speculative, resulting in a grave misapprehension of facts.
of association dues from Atty. Morales as he has been refusing to pay his dues for more than The Court agrees.
three decades. In sum, there is no dispute that Atty. Morales is a member of NGA, albeit a
delinquent member. In Tumpag v. Tumpag, the Court said: Generally, the court should A nuisance per accidens is one which depends upon certain conditions and
only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated
within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing
this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a party's does in law constitute a nuisance. Obviously, it requires a determination of such
substantial right. In Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, we allowed the RTC to consider, circumstances as to warrant the abatement of the nuisance. That can only be done
in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding with reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing the same of the time
whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. and place of hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing or act does
In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. v. Heirs of Valdez, et al., we held that the factual allegations in in law constitute a nuisance per accidens. In other words, it requires a proper
a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions appreciation of evidence before a court or tribunal rules that the property being
on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. maintained is a nuisance per accidens.

Considering that the requirement of membership is present, jurisdiction over the subject A reading of the CA's decision would easily reveal that its conclusions were merely
matter of the case was properly vested in the HLURB. speculative.

On the finding that the restroom was a nuisance per accidens By the use of the words "would, should, could," it can be discerned that the CA was not even
sure that the restroom has caused such annoyance to Atty. Morales or his family. Its
declaration that the restroom is a nuisance per accidens had no basis in evidence. There is
nothing in the records which discloses that Atty. Morales had introduced any evidence, within the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its adjudication the
testimonial or documentary, to prove that the restroom annoyed his senses, that foul odor presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will
emanated from it, or that it posed sanitary issues detrimental to his family's health. No be barred in the future if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same
certification by the City Health Officer was even submitted to the HLURB to attest on such case.
matters.
Any other counterclaim is permissive.
It was improper on the part of the CA to assume those negative effects because modern day
restrooms, even those for the use of the public, are clean, safe and emitting no odor as these The Court has held that the compelling test of compulsoriness characterizes a counterclaim
are regularly maintained. For said reason, it was an error on the part of the CA to rule that as compulsory if there should exist a logical relationship between the main claim and the
the restroom was a nuisance per accidens and to sustain the order that it should be counterclaim. The Court further ruled that there exists such a relationship when conducting
relocated. separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail substantial duplication of
time and effort by the parties and the court; when the multiple claims involve the same
Clearly, its finding was based on speculations, and not evidence. factual and legal issues; or when the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy
between the parties.27

On the finding that Atty. Morales had no access to to McKinley Park The criteria to determine whether the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive are
NGA claims that the CA erred in upholding Atty. Morales' unbridled access to the park, which as follows:
effectively constituted an easement of right of way without any basis as against the clear
statutory right of NGA, as the owner of the park, to fence and protect its property a) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim
on the basis of Articles 429 and 430 of the Civil Code. largely the same? Here, the main issues in the complaint are limited only to the
propriety of barring Atty. Morales from accessing the park through the side door and
The Court agrees with NGA. Under the Civil Code, NGA, as owner of the park, has the whether the restroom constructed by NGA is a nuisance per se. On the other hand,
right to enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead the counterclaim is simply concerned with collecting from Atty. Morales his unpaid
hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. It also association dues for the past thirty (30) years. Suffice it to state that payment or
has a right to exclude others from access to, and enjoyment of its property. non-payment of association dues are distinct matters that do not relate to whether
the main cause of Atty. Morales against NGA was proper.
NGA's legal right to block the access door is beyond doubt. Courts have no business in b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants claim absent the
securing the access of a person to another property absent any clear right on the compulsory rule? The failure to raise the issue of unpaid association dues in this
part of the latter. The CA essentially violated the right of NGA. Atty. Morales never case or its dismissal if properly raised will not be a bar to the filing of the appropriate
introduced any evidence that he had acquired any right by prescription or by agreement or separate action to collect it.
legal easement to access the park through his side door. Moreover, he never claimed that his c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well
side door was his only access to the park. He has other means and, being adjacent to the as defendant's counterclaim?
park, going through other means is not cumbersome. d) Is there any logical relations between the claim and the counterclaim?
Whether there was payment or otherwise is irrelevant to the main issues
considering that the pleadings filed by the parties essentially reflected an admission
The conditions set forth under the Deed of Donation by Ortigas & Co. Ltd. to NGA could not
of membership of Atty. Morales in the association.
be used by Atty. Morales in his favor. Assuming that he has a right as a member to use the
park, it does not mean that he can assert that his access to the park could only be done
through his side door. Atty. Morales knows very well that he can access the park through A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is
some other parts of the park. compulsory. Otherwise, the same is permissive.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Resolution of the CA are

REVERSED insofar as it affirmed (1) Atty. Morales' entitlement to an unbridled access to the
park through his side door; and (2) the order to relocate the restroom to another area.
Counterclaim for unpaid dues
A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or any relief, which a defending
party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or
is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the plaintiffs complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that it is