THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 134692. August 1, 2000]
ELISEO FAJARDO, JR., and MARISSA FAJARDO, petitioners, vs.
FREEDOM TO BUILD, INC., respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
Freedom To Build,
Incorporated, an owner-developer and seller of low-cost housing, sold to
petitioner-spouses, a house and lot designated Lot No. 33, Block 14, of the De
la Costa Homes in Barangka, Marikina, Metro Manila. The Contract to Sell
executed between the parties, contained a Restrictive Covenant providing
certain prohibitions, to wit:[1]
"Easements. For the
good of the entire community, the homeowner must observe a two-meter easement
in front. No structure of any kind (store, garage, bodega, etc.) may be built
on the front easement.
"x
x x.............................x x x.............................x
x x
"Upward
expansion. A second storey is not prohibited. But the
second storey expansion must be placed above the back portion of the house and
should not extend forward beyond the apex of the original building.
"x
x x.............................x x x.............................x
x x
"Front
expansion: 2nd Storey: No unit may be extended in the front
beyond the line as designed and implemented by the developer in the 60 sq. m.
unit. In other words, the 2nd floor expansion, in front, is 6 meters back from
the front property line and 4 meters back from the front wall of the house,
just as provided in the 60 sq. m. units."[2]
The above
restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384
covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses.
The controversy
arose when petitioners, despite repeated warnings from respondent, extended the
roof of their house to the property line and expanded the second floor of their
house to a point directly above the original front wall.[3] Respondent filed before the Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 261, Pasig City, an action to demolish
the unauthorized structures.
After trial,
judgment was rendered against petitioners; thus:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, defendant spouses Eliseo B. Fajardo, Jr., and Marissa F.
Fajardo are hereby directed to immediately demolish and remove the extension of
their expanded housing unit that exceeds the limitations imposed by the Restrictive
Covenant, otherwise the Branch Sheriff of this Court shall execute this
decision at the expense of the defendants.
"As to
damages and attorney's fees, it appearing from the records of this case that no
evidence to sustain the same was adduced by either of the parties, the Court
deems it proper not to award any.
"SO
ORDERED."[4]
On appeal to it,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In their petition
for review to this Court, the spouses contest the judgment of the courts below.
Adjacent owners reportedly have no objection to the construction, and have even
expressed interest in undertaking a similar expansion in their respective
residences. Moreover, the couple's two children, a son and a daughter, might
soon get married and then share, with their families, living quarters with
petitioners. The latter also assail the personality of private respondent to
question the construction which have effectively relinquished its ownership,
right or interest over the subdivision upon the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of the individual homeowners. Per the contract between
Freedom to Build Incorporated and the De la Costa Low Income Project
Homeowners' Association (hereinafter homeowners' association), petitioners
aver, the enforcement of the prohibitions contained in the "Restrictive
Covenant" originally residing on respondent is now lodged in the
homeowners' association. Petitioners maintain that it is incumbent upon the
homeowners' association, not on respondent, to enforce compliance with the
provisions of the covenant.
A perusal of the
provisions of the covenant would show that the restrictions therein imposed
were intended -
"For the
protection and benefit of the De La Costa Low Income Housing Project, and of
all the persons who may now, or hereafter become owners of any part of the
project, and as part of the consideration for the conveyance of the housing
unit, these restrictions are promulgated in order that; the intents and
purposes for which the project was designed shall be upheld; to wit: subsequent
duly approved sale and assignments of housing units shall be made only to low
income families; a certain level of privacy shall be observed; a community
spirit shall be fostered; and an undisturbed possession and occupancy at the
homeowners shall be maintained."[5]
Restrictive
covenants are not, strictly speaking, synonymous with easements. While it may
be correct to state that restrictive covenants on the use of land or the
location or character of buildings or other structures thereon may broadly be
said to create easements or rights, it can also be contended that such
covenants, being limitations on the manner in which one may use his own
property,[6] do not result in true easements,[7] but a case of servitudes (burden), sometimes
characterized to be negative easements or reciprocal negative easements.
Negative easement is the most common easement created by covenant or agreement
whose effect is to preclude the owner of the land from doing an act, which, if
no easement existed, he would be entitled to do.[8]
Courts which
generally view restrictive covenants with disfavor for being a restriction on
the use of one's property, have, nevertheless, sustained them[9] where the covenants are reasonable,[10] not contrary to public policy,[11] or to law,[12] and not in restraint of trade.[13] Subject to these limitations, courts enforce
restrictions to the same extent that will lend judicial sanction to any other
valid contractual relationship.[14] In general, frontline restrictions on constructions
have been held to be valid stipulations.[15]
The provisions in a
restrictive covenant prescribing the type of the building to be erected are
crafted not solely for the purpose of creating easements, generally of light
and view, nor as a restriction as to the type of construction,[16] but may also be aimed as a check on the subsequent
uses of the building[17] conformably with what the developer originally might
have intended the stipulations to be. In its Memorandum, respondent states in
arguing for the validity of the restrictive covenant that the -
"x x x
restrictions are not without specific purpose. In a low cost-socialized
housing, it is of public knowledge that owners-developers are constrained to
build as many number of houses on a limited land area precisely to accommodate
marginalized lot buyers, providing as much as possible the safety,
aesthetic and decent living condition by controlling overcrowding. Such project
has been designed to accommodate at least 100 families per hectare."[18]
There appears to be
no cogent reasons for not upholding restrictive covenants aimed to promote
aesthetics, health, and privacy or to prevent overcrowding.
Viewed accordingly,
the statement of petitioners that their immediate neighbors have not opposed
the construction is unavailing to their cause, the subject restrictive covenant
not being intended for the benefit of adjacent owners but to prescribe the uses
of the building, i.e., to ensure, among other things, that the structures built
on De la Costa Homes Subdivision would prevent overcrowding and promote privacy
among subdivision dwellers. The argument then of petitioners that expansion is
necessary in order to accommodate the individual families of their two children
must fail for like reason. Nor can petitioners claim good faith; the
restrictive covenants are explicitly written in the Contract To Sell and
annotated at the back of the Transfer Certificate of Title.
Petitioners raise
the issue of the personality of respondent to enforce the provisions of the
covenant. Broadly speaking, a suit for equitable enforcement of a restrictive
covenant can only be made by one for whose benefit it is intended.[19] It is not thus normally enforceable by one who has
no right nor interest in the land for the benefit of which the restriction has
been imposed.[20] Thus, a developer of a subdivision can enforce
restrictions, even as against remote grantees of lots, only if he retains part
of the land.[21] There would have been merit in the argument of
petitioners - that respondent, having relinquished ownership of the subdivision
to the homeowners, is precluded from claiming any right or interest on the same
property - had not the homeowners' association, confirmed by its board of directors,
allowed respondent to enforce the provisions of the restrictive covenant.
Finally,
petitioners argue that for lack of a specific provision, prescribing the
penalty of demolition in the "Restrictive Covenant" in the event of a
breach thereof, the prayer of respondent to demolish the structure should fail.
This argument has no merit; Article 1168 of the New Civil Code states:
"When the
obligation consists in not doing and the obligor does what has been forbidden
him, it shall be undone at his expense."
This Court is not
unaware of its ruling in Ayala Corporation vs. Ray Burton Development
Corporation,[22] which has
merely adjudged the payment of damages in lieu of demolition. In the
aforementioned case, however, the elaborate mathematical formula for the
determination of compensatory damages which takes into account the current
construction cost index during the immediately preceding 5 years based on the
weighted average of wholesale price and wage indices of the National Census and
Statistics Office and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is explicitly provided for
in the Deed of Restrictions entered into by the parties. This unique and
peculiar circumstance, among other strong justifications therein mentioned, is
not extant in the case at bar.
In sum, the Court
holds that -
(1)....The
provisions of the Restrictive Covenant are valid;
(2)....Petitioners
must be held to be bound thereby; and
(3)....Since
the extension constructed exceeds the floor area limits of the Restrictive
Covenant, petitioner-spouses can be required to demolish the structure to the
extent that it exceeds the prescribed floor area limits.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision, dated 13 July 1998, of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50085, sustaining that of the court a quo,
is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Restrictive Covenants: Apendix, Records, p. 11.
[2] Records, pp. 9-11.
[3] By mutual agreement between the Homeowners
Association and the developer, the restriction was relaxed from 4-meters to a
2-meter setback.
[4] Records, p. 191.
[5] Memorandum for respondent, Rollo, pp. 62-63.
[6] Kutchinski vs. Thompson, 101 NJ Eq. 649, 138
A569.
[7] Moses vs. Hazen, 63 App DC 104, 69 F 2d 842,
98 ALR 386.
[8] Wilson vs. Owen (Mo) 261 SW2d 19.
[9] Firth vs. Marovich, 160 Cal 257, 116 P729.
[10] Townsend vs. Allen, 114 Cal App 2d 291, 250
P2d 292, 39 ALR 2d 1108.
[11] Fusha vs. Dacono Town Site Co. 60 Colo 315,
153 P226.
[12] Supra, Townsend.
[13] Whitney vs. Union R. Co. 11 Gray (Mass) 359.
[14] Hartman vs. Wells, 257 III 167, 100 NE 500. In
a notable number of cases, restrictions imposed on property conveyed were
declared invalid for having contravened some constitutional or statutory
provision, or where found to be of no benefit to anyone and a serious interference
in the proper development of the community (Harris vs. Pease, 135
Conn 535, 66 A2d 590, 10 ALR 2d 819) and where it amounted to a prohibition
of the use of property. (Baker vs. Henderson, 137 Tex 266, 153 SW2d
465.)
[15] Bagiano vs. Harrow, 247 Mich 481 226 NW 262.
[16] Hutchinson vs. Ulrich, 145 III 336, 34 NE 556.
[17] Id, See also Schwarzchild vs. Welborne
186 Va 1052, 45 SE 2d 152.
[18] Memorandum for Respondent, Rollo, p. 62.
[19] Aull vs. Kraft (Tex Civ App) 286 SW2d 460.
[20] Lillard vs. Jet Homes, Inc. (La App) 129 So2d
109)
[21] 19 ALR 2d 1281 No. 5.
[22] 294 SCRA 48.