Republic of the
Supreme
Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
CHATEAU DE BAIE CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - SPS. RAYMOND and MA. Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 186271 Present:
*CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, **BRION, Acting Chairperson,
BERSAMIN, ***ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR. and
SERENO, JJ. Promulgated:
February 23, 2011 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
Before us is the petition for review
on certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed by
Chateau de Baie Condominium Corporation (petitioner)
challenging the decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) that
dismissed its petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. The petition,
the CA ruled upon, questioned the ruling[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258,
This case is the second of two related cases submitted to us involving the condominium unit of Ma. Rosario Moreno. We had decided the first case – Oscar S. Salvacion v. Chateau de Baie Condominium Corporation, G.R. No. 178549[3] – and our ruling has attained finality.
The Facts
Mrs. Moreno is the registered owner of
a penthouse unit and two parking slots in Chateau de Baie Condominium (Chateau Condominium) in
Mrs.
Moreno obtained a loan of P16,600,000.00 from Oscar Salvacion, and she mortgaged
the
Under Section 20 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4726 (the Condominium Act),[4] when a unit owner fails to pay the association dues, the condominium corporation can enforce a lien on the condominium unit by selling the unit in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale.
On
P323,870.85. It also sent a demand letter to the
Subsequently,
to enforce its lien, the president of the petitioner wrote the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio
Sheriff of
The
first case - the Salvacion Case (Civil Case No. 05-0061;
CA-G.R.
SP No. 90339; and G.R. No. 178549)
To
stop the extrajudicial sale, Salvacion, as mortgagee, filed, on
On
P1,328,967.12. The RTC denied Salvacion’s motion for
reconsideration.
Salvacion went to the CA via a petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 90339) and, among others, submitted the issue of whether the RTC erred in finding Section 5, Article 4 of the By-Laws of the petitioner as blanket authority to institute an extrajudicial foreclosure, contrary to Section 20 of R.A. No. 4726 and Section 1 of Act No. 3135.
On
Salvacion
appealed to this Court through a petition for review on certiorari.[10] The Court’s Third Division denied the petition
for technical infirmities and for failing to show that the CA committed any
reversible error. An entry of judgment was made on
The
present case – the Moreno Case
(Civil
Case No. 05-0183 and CA-G.R. SP No. 93217)
While
the Salvacion case was pending before the CA, the
spouses filed before the RTC, Parañaque City, a complaint for intra-corporate
dispute against the petitioner[12] to
question how it calculated the dues assessed against them, and to ask an
accounting of the association dues. They asked for damages and the annulment of
the foreclosure proceedings, and prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction. The case was raffled to Branch 258 and was docketed as Civil Case
No. 05-0183.
The petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that since the complaint was against the owner/developer of a condominium whose condominium project was registered with and licensed by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), the HLURB has the exclusive jurisdiction.
In
an order dated
The petitioner went to the CA via a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC for not dismissing the Moreno spouses’ complaint because (1) the Moreno spouses are guilty of forum shopping, (2) of litis pendencia, and (3) the appeal pending before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 90339 [SPL CV No. 05-0061]).
The
CA’s First Division denied the petition in its decision of
Since the
instant civil case involves an intra-corporate controversy, it is the RTC which
has jurisdiction over the same pursuant to R.A. 8799 otherwise known as the
Securities Regulation Code and Section 9 of the Interim Rules. The public respondent indeed correctly
applied the provisions of the Interim Rules.
And under Section 8(1), Rule 1 thereof, it is expressly stated that a
Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading.
Thus, the motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction filed
by petitioner must necessarily be denied and expunged from the record. Petitioner should have instead averred its
defense of lack of jurisdiction and even the issue of forum shopping in its
Answer. Section 6, par. (4), Rule 2 of
the Interim Rules, explicitly provides that in the Answer, the defendant can
state the defenses, including the grounds for a motion to dismiss under the
Rules of Court.
Considering that the motion to dismiss filed by
private respondent is a prohibited pleading, hence, it did not toll the running
of the period for filing an Answer, the public respondent properly declared the
petitioner in default for its failure to file its Answer within fifteen (15)
days from its receipt of summons.[17]
The CA’s First Division also denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration;[18] hence, this appeal by way of a Rule 45 petition.
The Issue
The petitioner submits this sole issue for our consideration:
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY ANOTHER DIVISION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP. NO. 90339 ENTITLED OSCAR
The
Court’s Ruling
We deny the petition for lack of merit. The CA did not err when it did not dismiss
the
The case before the RTC involved an
intra-corporate dispute – the
The facts of this case are similar to the facts in Wack Wack Condominium Corporation, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[20] where we held that the dispute as to the validity of the assessments is purely an intra-corporate matter between Wack Wack Condominium Corporation and its stockholder, Bayot, and is, thus, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[21] We ruled in that case that since the extrajudicial sale was authorized by Wack Wack Condominium Corporation’s by-laws and was the result of the nonpayment of the assessments, the legality of the foreclosure was necessarily an issue within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the SEC. We added that:
Just because the property has already been sold
extrajudicially does not mean that the questioned assessments have now become
legal and valid or that they have become immaterial. In fact, the validity of the foreclosure depends on
the legality of the assessments and the issue must be determined by the SEC if
only to insure that the private respondent was not deprived of her property
without having been heard. If there were no valid assessments, then there was
no lien on the property, and if there was no lien, what was there to foreclose?
Thus, SEC Case No. 2675 has not become moot and academic and the SEC retains
its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case despite the extrajudicial sale.[22]
Based
on the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the CA’s First Division dismissing the
petitioner’s petition. The way is now
clear for the RTC to continue its proceedings on the
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari
and AFFIRM the Decision, dated
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(NO PART)
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* No Part.
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Third Division effective
***
Designated additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 944
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, and concurred in by
Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Mariflor P.
Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 24-33.
[2] Annex “C,” Petition; id. at 37-38.
[3]
[4] Section
20. An assessment upon any condominium
made in accordance with a duly registered declaration of restrictions shall be
an obligation of the owner thereof at the time the assessment is made. The
amount of any such assessment plus any other charges thereon, such as interest,
costs (including attorney's fees) and penalties, as such may be provided for in
the declaration of restrictions, shall be and become a lien upon the
condominium assessed when the management body causes a notice of assessment to
be registered with the Register of Deeds of the city or province where such
condominium project is located. The notice shall state the amount of such
assessment and such other charges thereon as may be authorized by the
declaration of restrictions, a description of the condominium unit against
which same has been assessed, and the name of the registered owner thereof.
Such notice shall be signed by an authorized representative of the management
body or as otherwise provided in the declaration of restrictions. Upon payment
of said assessment and charges or other satisfaction thereof, the management
body shall cause to be registered a release of the lien.
Such lien shall be superior to all other liens registered subsequent to the registration of said notice of assessment except real property tax liens and except that the declaration of restrictions may provide for the subordination thereof to any other liens and encumbrances.
Such liens may be enforced in the same manner provided for by law for the judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages of real property. Unless otherwise provided for in the declaration of restrictions, the management body shall have power to bid at the foreclosure sale. The condominium owner shall have the same right of redemption as in cases of judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages.
[5] Rollo, p. 43.
[6] Entitled Oscar S. Salvacion v. Atty.
Clemente E. Boloy, in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff, Office of the
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
[7] An Act
to Regulate the Sale of Property Under Special Powers Inserted In or Annexed to
Real Estate Mortgages (approved on
[8] Rollo, pp. 42-49; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III.
[9]
[10] G.R. No. 178549, entitled Oscar S. Salvacion v. Chateau de Baie Condominium Corporation.
[11] Rollo, p. 53.
[12]
On
[13] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[14] Rule 1, Section 8. Prohibited pleadings. — The following pleadings are prohibited:
(1) Motion to dismiss;
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of judgment or order, or for re-opening of trial;
(4) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper, except those filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath; and
(5) Motion for postponement and other motions of similar intent, except those filed due to clearly compelling reasons. Such motion must be verified and under oath.
[15] Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[16]
[17]
[18]
In its
[19]
[20]
G.R. No. 78490,
[21] Section 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code (R.A. No. 8799) transferred exclusive and original jurisdiction of the SEC over actions involving intra-corporate controversies to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate RTC.
[22] Supra note 20, at 856.