Republic of the Philippines HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ADJUDICATION COMMISSION Regional Adjudication Branch-National Capital Region 6" floor, HLURB Building, Kalayaan Ave. cor. Mayaman St. Diliman, Quezon City HON. EDGARDO L. SAMSON Regional Adjudicator s REGISTRY RECEIPT ae RE 193 ¥ BROOKSIDE RESIDENTS fe Sanna ey ASSOCIATION INC. (BRAI) pi, .* cee: op MELANIO DEL CASTILLO ET Preserve this receipt for reterence ig case of inquiry AL., 15 SUN Complainant, Postmaster/Tel \ ree Case No. HSAC NCR HOA-201110-00097 \ -versus- BROOKSIDE HILLS ANTIPOLO. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.(BAHAT), Respondent. POSITION PAPER The RESPONDENT, through counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully avers that: PROLOGUE In the instant case, one thing is undisputed: the Respondent was given the existence by the honorable office of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) pursuant to Certificate of Incorporation No. NCR-H-20-021 issued by Regional Director Atty. Norman Jacinto P. Doral on 4 February 2020 creating the “BROOKSIDE HILLS ANTIPOLO HOMEOWNERS Page |1ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED (BAHAI). With the Complainants assailing the existence of BAHAI, the remaining question is, did the DHSUD commit an error in allowing the BAHAI to exist? Why is it that the Complainants are so eager to assail the existence of BAHAI? Is BAHAI a treat to the existence of BRAI? What motivated the Complainants in assailing the existence of BAHAI? These are the questions of indispensable importance in this instant case. To answer those questions, it requires a thorough consideration of all attending circumstances to this instant case. I. STATEMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER TO SUBMIT POSITION PAPER 1. Both parties were given the time to submit their respective Position Paper on or before 31 May 2021. However, the counsel of records for the Respondent is suffering from sickness due to his old age which is beyond his control; 2. Thus, he then brought to the attention of this honorable office that the undersigned counsel will be entering an Entry of Appearance to act as the lead counsel with the prayer for an extension of time or until 15 June 2021 for the undersigned counsel to prepare the Position Paper; 3. Hence, the Respondent has until 15 June 2021 within which to file its Position Paper with Draft Decision; II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE 4. There are two (2) BRAI existed, namely: First, BRAI of 1998 as admitted by the Complainants as established by their Annexes “B” and “B-1”", and second, BRAI of 2005 as admitted by the Complainants as established by their Annex “A”; 5. Accordingly, the BRAI of 1998 was dissolved because its Certificate of Registration was revoked on August 11, 2003 for non-compliance with SEC reportorial requirements. Hence, the birth of another Homeowners Association (HOA) Page | 2known as the BRAI of 2005 for purposes of discussion of this case; 6. In registering the BRAI 2005, the incorporators submitted the documentary requirements that included the BRAI 2005 Jurisdictional Map; 7. The Jurisdictional Map of BRAI 2005 and other documents show that BRAI 2005 covers only those lots in Cainta, Rizal and the same was attested, through Certificate and Affidavit, by the Board Secretary at that time, September 2005, in the person of Mr. Amos E. Reyes. Proofs were attached and marked as Annexes “1a”, “1b” and “1c” of the Respondent’s Answer; 8. From those documentary evidences, the area of Antipolo City was never part of the Jurisdictional Map of BRAI, much those lots and lots owners are not within its jurisdiction as homeowners; 9. The above-mentioned facts were not disclosed to the lot owners and homeowners of areas in the Antipolo City’s jurisdiction until by 2018 there was news about the existence of a JURISDICTIONAL MAP of BRAI 2005 which is being kept at the HLURB because another Homeowners composing of squatters in the area of Antipolo City was creating a HOA disputing the claim of jurisdiction of BRAI over them; 10. Abraham B. Tible (Tible), Ramon Paul D. Gorostiza (Gorostiza), Christina C. Santiago (Santiago) and Josefina Valera (Valera) were not aware of the above-mentioned Jurisdictional Map although all of them are lot owners in the area of Antipolo City; 11. Tible served BRAI 2005 as he is a_ lot owner/homeowner in the Cainta Portion of BRAI 2005, while Santiago and Valera also served as Trustees and in 2018, Gorostiza served as the BRAI President believing in good faith that BRAI has jurisdiction over the lot owners in the area of Antipolo City; 12. Gorostiza won the election but was nullified by the COMELEC upon protest made by the group of Complainant Del Castillo. But by virtue of a Cease and Desist Order from Page |3the HLURB, he was able to serve BRAI 2005 as its President for 6 months, but never been allowed to become a bank signatory through the machinations of Complainant Del Castillo and his cohorts; 13. Tible, Gorostiza, Santiago and Valera finally got hold of the said Jurisdictional Map, together with the Board Secretary’s Certification and Affidavit; 14. The said Jurisdictional Map of BRAI 2005 contained areas in Cainta, Rizal only up to Camden St. corner San Martin De Porres St, Antipolo City; 15. Also, other documents were obtained like the Compromise Agreement between BRAI 2005 and the developer St. Louis Realty Corporation. This compromise agreement was reached between the two parties after a very long legal battle at the HLURB, CA, Office of the President and the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The said agreement was attached and marked as Annex “4” to the Respondent's Answer; 16. A careful reading and analysis of the said agreement showed (highlighted) that the said agreement is between BRAI 2005 and SLRC for the former’s PROJECTS IN CAINTA, RIZAL only; 17. Gorostiza, Tible, Santiago and Valera had served as BRAI 2005 officers, but the DISCOVERY of the facts contained therein showed that Antipolo City residents are seemed to be adopted residents only of BRAI 2005. In most cases, the adopted residents, like children were kept in the dark through the silence of its claiming leaders; 18. The now enlightened leaders of BAHAI had awakened to the truth that they were all adopted and felt that they were being treated like a second-class citizen of BRAI 2005; 19. Others chose to sleep further and watch our area becomes a “Squatter Colony” since the BRAI 2005 itself encourages and supports the coming in of material needs of the squatters by selling gate passes to them for P 100.00; 20. The one hundred Pesos is its equivalent to prejudice the substantial rights of ownership of the lot owners who Page | 4bought their lots from St. Louis Realty and now facing with the loss of their lots to the squatters who are both condoned and approved by both the BRAI 2005 and St. Louis Realty for inactions of the complaints of the Lot Owners in Antipolo City areas as the squatters are allowed to pass the gates of BRAI 2005 for a valuable amount; 21. The scenarios of the legitimate homeowners in Antipolo City areas were lumped together with criminals and checked at the Camden Gate that led to so many uncalled situations and crimes; 22. Because of their alleged claimed of jurisdiction over the homeowners and lot owners in the area of Antipolo City, BRAI 2005 is getting its shares to the collections from those homeowners and lot owners, aside from the collections it is getting from the squatters in the area of BAHAI; 23. Worse, the area of Antipolo City has no developments being done by BRAI 2005 as some roads were cemented through the retained funds of areas in the Antipolo City and through the donations of well-meaning residents; 24. To the leadership of BAHAI, BRAI 2005 considers the homeowners and lot owners the adopted residents as second class citizens of BRAI 2005 and a source of funds by collecting dues and Gate passes and regulation fees in Antipolo City area from the Socialized residents and illegal settlers who never want to be regulated, to add to its legal fund and to pay the mother/daughter gate guards at Camden St. who has never lowered the boom; 25. Lot owners in the area of Antipolo City are asking for help to locate and recover their lots. The leadership of BRAI 2005 just ignored the lot owners whose lots had been taken over by the squatters. Concerns like this and other uncalled incidence prompted the lot owners and homeowners to create an association for themselves that they can say and claim theirs for the protections of their common interests in relation to their ownerships, community developments, Peace and order; and 26. Upon the Manifesto of, more or less, hundreds of the Homeowners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City, the BAHAI was conceived. Page |527. On 14 November 2019, the BAHAI was created and with Seventy One (71) members composing of the legitimate Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City; 28. But, Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama of Cainta, officers of BRAI, are not happy. So, they convinced for whatever benefits some of the members of BAHAI to be with them as Complainants to assail the existence of BAHAI; 29. Hence, this Complaint for the Implementation of the Adjudicatory Mechanism in the Registration of Association on the ground of alleged redundancy of HOA; and 30. The Respondent, in addition to its defense, questioned the legal standing of the persons acting for and in behalf of BRAI 2005 as they are not clothed with authority from BRAI 2005 to sue BAHAI; and 32. The Respondent, in defending its existence, incurred expenses for legal fees in securing the services of a legal counsel in the amount of One Hundred Fifty (Php150,000) Thousand, plus Six Thousand (Php6,000) for every appearance in attending this case. ISSUES 1. WHETHER OR NOT BRAI 2005 CAN SUE BAHAI WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY COMING FROM ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS; 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE AREA OF ANTIPOLO CITY IS PART OF THE JURISDICTION OF BRAI 2005; 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE DHSUD COMMITTED ERRORS IN ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO EXISTING LAWS; AND 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE RESPONDENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEE AND COST OF LITIGATION EXPENSES. Page | 6DISCUSSION 1. WHETHER OR NOT BRAI_ 2005 CAN SUE BAHAI WITHOUT HE AUTHORITY COMING FROM _ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The act of the Complainants in bringing this case in the name of BRAI 2005 against BAHAI is unauthorized and illegal. Records show that there is no Board Resolution and Secretary Certificate authorizing BRAI 2005 to file a case against BAHAI. Section 11 of En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC provides: “Section 11. Appearance of Counsel or Representative.- The appearance of counsel is optional. (a) xxx... (D) xxx... (C) Xxx... (d) In case the party represented is a corporation, the representative shall attach to the Complaint a secretary's certificate authorizing him/her to act on behalf of the corporation. The n_of th sentativi te af ther in th ‘m of. z if ic ial ir of the ymplait or other jato. I ss Fi f thi f ‘A the requirements herein shall_render_the pleading as __not___filed.”(Emphasis | and underscoring supplied) Page |7In view of the above-mentioned provision, the case filed in the name of BRAI 2005 in this instant case should be treated to be as not filed and, therefore, be dismissed. Although Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama are all of officers of BRAI 2005, there's no showing that they have a Board Resolution and Secretary's Certificate or a Special Power of Attorney to represent BRAI 2005. Ergo, Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama cannot bring suit for and in behalf of BRAI 2005 to represent the latter against the Respondent in the absence of a Resolution from the Board of Directors authorizing them to do so. Further, even if Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama filed this instant case in their individual capacity, including the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City they convinced to file a case against BAHAI, the same should be dismissed because they are not the parties-in-interest in this case. Reading the Complaint of the Complainants, Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari, Alicia Villarama and the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City are not the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit, or the party entitled to the avails of this suit. Hence, they are not parties-in-interest; Section 8, Rule 3 of En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC provides: “Section . Parties.- Every action or proceeding must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.” And Section 2, Rule 3 of Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who is the party who stands to benefit or suffer from the judgment in the suit. Page |S.Accordingly, a suit filed by a person who is not a party- in-interest must be dismissed (Tankiko vs. Cesar, G.R. 131277, February 2, 1999) on the ground of lack of cause of action (Spouses Oco vs. Limbaring, G.R. 161298, January 31, 2006). Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as: “Sec. 2, Cause of action, defined. A_cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates _a right of another.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the Part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. In the instant case, the above-mentioned essential elements are not present to be invoked by the individual Complainants. Considering that the party-in-interest here is BRAI 2005 and not Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari, Alicia Villarama and the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City, this Honorable Office should dismiss this case. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE AREA OF ANTIPOLO CITY IS PART OF THE JURISDICTION OF BRAI 2005. The Complainants asserted that the existence of BAHAI resulted to Redundancy of Homeowners Association in Area 15 of BRAI 2205. Hence, invoked the three (3) provisions of Page |9laws, namely: Section 4 of R.A. 9904 and Sections 20 & 26 of IRR of R.A. 9904 and quote: “Section 4. Registration with the HLURB. - Every association of homeowners shall be required to register with the HLURB. This registration shall serve to grant juridical personality to all such associations that have not previously acquired the same by operation of the General Corporation Law or by any other general law. The procedure for registration shall be specifically provided for in the implementing rules and regulations to be promulgated by the HLURB pursuant to Section 28 of this Act. Such ui vie ran m is will be observed in th there is a dispute involving two (2) or more ociati sta bli: withi thi ivision/vil ymmunity/a or housing project seeking registration. In olvin: is di: the HLURB ke into ai atic as Ie i thi missi f__its licatic for istration, n if _mi rs, ani other similar factors. The existence of associations previously registered with the Home Insurance Guarantee Corporation or the SEC shall be respected, and the Said associations shall not be charged a penalty when they register with the HLURB after this Act takes effect.” “Section 20. Number of Associations. - As far ticable, onl; 1 wn lation hall blished i is it [LURB_in_ea livisic except in cases where the subdivision consists of two (2) or more phases. In case two (2) or more associations are registered or applying for registration within the same subdivision, the whi jatic Page | 10“Section 26. Adjudicatory Mechanism in the Registration of Association. - In case two or more associations are organized within the same subdivision/village and both applied for registration with HLURB in accordance with this Rules, the HLURB shall register only one association in accordance with the following procedures: a. The association which submitted first it lis ie hil ymplied with all th iremen: if registered; 6. In case there are two (2) associations registered with the SEC or HIGC, then the association which was registered earlier shall be recognized; and, c. In ‘1) of sociation: is with ind th with HLURB, nn lic is revail an registratit hi th be revoked, provided the requirements under Section 24 are submitted within a period of one (1) year of the effectivity of this Rules. Nothing in this Rules shall prevent the HLURB from taking into consideration other factors in determining whose association shall be registered and recognized.” The above-quoted provisions with their emphasis and underscoring supplied are all self-explanatory and cannot be applied in the case of BRAI 2005 and BAHAI for a simple reason that the alleged Area 15 of BRAI 2005 in the area of Antipolo City is not part of Jurisdictional Map of BRAI 2005. So, legally and technically speaking no amount of whatever claim made by any individual or institution, Page | 11activities or testimonies can change that. "Res ipsa loquitur”, the documents used by BRAI 2005 will speak for itself that its Jurisdictional Map covers only the area of Cainta, Rizal. Further, the creation of BAHAI does not even require any referendum from the Home Owners and Lot Owners of area in Antipolo City for them to decide and there is no issue of separating themselves from BRAI 2005 because their area is legally and technically not within BRAI 2005 Jurisdictional Map. 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE DHSUD COMMITTED ERRORS _IN ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PUR IT TO EXISTING LAWS The DHSUD did not commit errors in issuing Certificate of Incorporation to BAHAI pursuant to existing laws. The Respondent followed strictly the provisions of Sections 20, 22 and 25 of IRR RA 9904, Rule 5, on Registration of Homeowners Association. It submitted its Jurisdictional Map and did not encroach or violate the Jurisdictional Map of BRAI 2005. The DHSUD functions as the Regulatory Body for the registration of all HOA all over the Philippines. When it issued a Certificate of Incorporation, either provisional or permanent, that act enjoyed a presumption of regularity, that is, the act was done in the manner prescribed by law and by an officer authorized by law to do it. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. Th ti however, until_it_is overcome by no less than clear and incin iden ntrary. Th in ion i it be nclusive. Ever re le ini ment wil m i f th Page | 12being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) - REGION IV, MANILA vs. AMOR HACHERO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PALAWAN. G.R. No. 200973, May 30, 2016) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 4. WHETHER OR NOT HE COMPLAINANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE _TO PAY THE RESPONDENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COST _OF LITIGATION EXPENSES. The Complainants acted whimsically and capriciously, and disregarding the Jurisdictional Map the BRAI 2005 has used in its application as HOA. They knew from the very beginning that the area of jurisdiction of BRAI 2005 is solely determined from its Jurisdictional Map submitted before the Regulatory Body. It became crystal clear to the Respondent that the Complainants acted maliciously when they filed this instant case. Considering the Complainants’ propensity to disregard not only their Jurisdictional Map, it only shows them to be wanting in honesty, probity and good demeanor in filing the case against BAHAI by BRAI 2005 even without authority from its board of directors. The Complainants, acting singly or collectively, and/or in unlawful concert with one another, were obviously determined to destroy BAHAI to the prejudice of the legitimate Home Owners and Lot Owners of BAHAI to insure the Complainants’ malicious intention to humiliate the officers and members of the Respondent and to perpetuate themselves into over powering the Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City. Page | 13The Complainants, in perpetrating the unlawful acts described-above, committed abuses of rights and powers which caused untold humiliation, prejudice and damages to the officers and to BAHAI. Be that as it may, the Respondent has to defend itself by securing the services of a lawyer for a fee against the acts of the Complainants and it should be at least be reimbursed for its expenses of Attorney's Fee and litigation expenses. The truth remains that in their attempt to destroy the existence of BAHAI, the Complainants resorted into deliberate coercing the members of BAHAI through the non- issuance of Car Stickers and other illegal and unlawful acts in violation of R. A. 9904. The acts of the Complainants are unjust which caused uncalled expenses to litigate this instant case and in violation of Articles 19 & 20 of the Civil Code, and quote: “ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” “ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.” Based on the above provisions, the Respondent is entitled to damages, Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for, that: 1. After hearing, a judgment be rendered: a. Declaring the case filed by BRAI 2005 against BAHAI as not filed for failure of the Complainants or counsel to comply with the requirements provided for in the last paragraph of Section 11 of Page | 14En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC; o . Dismissing the case filed by those individual Complainants on the ground of lack of cause of action (Spouses Oco vs. Limbaring, G.R. 161298, January 31, 2006) for being not parties-in-interest in-interest. (Tankiko vs. Cesar, G.R. 131277, February 2, 1999); c. Sustaining the presumption of regularity of official acts of the DHSUD in issuing a Certificate of Incorporation of BAHAI and registered it with his office and, therefore, declaring it conclusively correct; and a |. Ordering the Complainants jointly and severally to pay the Respondent of: i, Attorney’s Fee amounting to Php150,000.00 ii. Appearance Fee of Php6,000.00; and iii, The cost of suit and litigation expenses. The Respondent also prays for other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises. Quezon City, 15 June 2021. ESCOTE & ASSOCIATES 11 MN Cyber One Building Eastwood Cyberpark Quezon City 1110, Philippines email: escote.and.associates@gmail.com By: Page | 15ell No IBP Lifetime No. 557613, Q.C. 28 June 2002 PTR No.0237170D, Q.C. 14 August 2020 MCLE No.VI-0029354, 18 November 2019 GIL BALANTAC BACLIG Roll No. 27530 IBP No. 056585, Q.C. 16 January 2019 PTR No. 0177132D, Q.C. 22 July 2020 MCLE No.VI-0028606, 18 November 2019 Copy Furnished: DACQUEL & LECCIO LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Complainants Level 10-1, One Global Place 5" Avenue and 25" Street Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City 1632 EXPLANATION Copy of the Position Paper was served upon the party and to this Honorable Commission by registered mail for personal service being impracticable due to health reason and lack of personnel. Page | 16VERIFICATION We, RAMON PAUL D. GOROSTIZA and ABRAHAM B. TIBLE, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say that: 1. We are the President and Vice-President, respectively, of the respondent corporation; 2. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper; 3. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on our personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents; 4. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and 5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this 15 June 2021 at _ CAINTA, RIZAL lA waht UL D. GOROSTIZA ABRAHAM B. TIBLE Affiant Affiant ID No. ID No. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 15 June 2021 at CAINTA, RIZAL , the affiants exhibiting to me their aforementioned ID Cards. ——— aySRew PRONE! NOTARY BYSLIC UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2021 eye no. (NOKatY PI 2019 Nev 0928918, Octo see Pecan conve, Rizal Doc. No. }IN™ Page No. 72] Book No. X} Series of 2021.Republic of the Philippines) Antipolo City, Rizal )Ss. x erence x AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE |, Earl Juris C. Escote of ESCOTE & ASSOCIATES, with office address at 11 MN Cyber One Building, Eastwood Cyberpark, Quezon City, after having been duly sworn to depose and say, that: On 45 June 2021, | served a copy of a Position Paper for the case entitled: BRAI vs. BAHAI, HSAC Case No. NCR HOA-201110-00097, by registered mail to: DACQUEL & LECCIO LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Complainants LEVE 10-1 One Global Place 5" Avenue and 25thStreet Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | have hereunto affixed my signature this 15 June 2021 at Antipolo City, Rizal, Philippines. SS EARL JURIS C. ESCOTE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15 June 2021 at Antipolo City, Rizal. The affiant exhibited to me his ID bearing his photograph and signature as required under Sections 2, 6 and 12, Rule I! of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (en banc Resolution dated 19 February 2008). Y LOR Pusu ROLLNO. 55604, '8P LIFETIME NO, 030044, ISSUED ON aPRiL 8, 2011/0,8. #asa3es {BP RIZAL CHAPTER: ANTIPOLO, TSYTHY, CAINTA PTRNO.7783744j14N. 5, 2021 "MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. VI-0007877 / APRIL 14,2019, NOTARIAL APPOINTMENT NO, 20 ‘UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 202%Republic of the Philippines HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ADJUDICATION COMMISSION Regional Adjudication Branch-National Capital Region 6" floor, HLURB Building, Kalayaan Ave. cor. Mayaman St. Diliman, Quezon City BROOKSIDE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. (BRAI) MELANIO DEL CASTILLO ET AL., Complainant, Case No. HSAC NCR HOA-201110-00097 -versus- BROOKSIDE HILLS ANTIPOLO. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.(BAHAI), Respondent. DECISION Before this Branch is a Complaint for Implementation of the Adjudicatory Mechanism in the Registration of Association. PREFATORY FACTS This case is filed by the Complainant assailing the registration of the Respondent as a Home Owners Association contending that the registration is a case of redundancy between Complainant BRAI and the Respondent as they co-exist in the Area 15 of BRAT. The Complainants asserted that BRAI existed and registered ahead of Respondent BAHAI showing the documents of BRAI 1998 and BRAI 2005. Page | 1The Complainants prayed for that existence of the Respondent be declared as redundant, to revoke or annul the provisional Certificate of Incorporation issued to Respondent BAHAI, and to direct the Involuntary Dissolution of Respondent BAHAI. The Respondent, in defending its position, contended that the BRAI 1998 was dissolved because its Certificate of Registration was revoked on August 11, 2003 for non- compliance with SEC reportorial requirements. This led to the existing of another Homeowners Association (HOA) known as the BRAI of 2005 which is the Complainant in the case at bar. The Respondent contended that this instant case be dismissed for the following reasons: 1. In the case of BRAI, the Complainants or counsel failed to comply with the requirements provided for in the last paragraph of Section 11 of En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC; and 2. In the case of those individual Complainants, for lack of cause of action as they are not parties-in-interest. Further, the Respondent contended that the issuance of its Certificate is correct as its area is not covered by the Jurisdictional Map of Complainant BRAI. Furthermore, the Respondent contended that this instant case had caused uncalled legal and _ litigation expenses. This Branch, after perusing the entire records and considering the arguments of both parties in their respective Position Papers, hereby considered the following issues for Resolution, to wit: 1. WHETHER OR NOT BRAI CAN SUE BAHAI WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY COMING FROM ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS; 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE AREA OF ANTIPOLO CITY IS PART OF THE JURISDICTION OF BRAI TO DECLARE BAHAI AS REDUNDANT HOA; Page | 23. WHETHER OR NOT THE DHSUD COMMITTED ERRORS IN ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO EXISTING LAWS TO ALLOW REVOCATION OF THE ISSUED CERTIFICATE; AND 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANTS ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE RESPONDENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COST OF LITIGATION EXPENSES. Anent the first issue, records show that there is no Board Resolution and Secretary Certificate authorizing BRAI to file a case against BAHAI. Section 11 (d) of En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC provides that “...(d) In case the Party represented is a corporation, the representative shall attach to the Complaint a secretary's certificate authorizing him/her to act on behalf of the corporation. The authorization of the representative to act on behalf of a whi rin form “ or ie wer of attori she be to Compi: or initis ne i . Fail \f_th or mn to compl with the requirements herein shall_render_the pleading _as_not_filed."(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In view of the above-mentioned provision, the case filed in the name of BRAI in this instant case should be treated to be as not filed and, therefore, dismissed. Likewise, although Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama are all of officers of BRAI 2005, there’s no showing that they have a Board Resolution and Secretary's Certificate or a Special Power of Attorney to represent BRAI to file a case against BRAI. Ergo, Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama cannot bring suit for and in behalf of BRAI to represent the latter against BAHAI in the absence of a Resolution from the Board of Directors authorizing them to do so. Page | 3Further, even if Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari and Alicia Villarama filed this instant case in their individual capacity, including the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City, the same should be dismissed because they are not the parties-in-interest in this case. Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari, Alicia Villarama and the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City are not the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in this suit, or the party entitled to the avails of this suit. Hence, they are not parties-in-interest; Section 8, Rule 3 of En Banc Resolution No.8 S. 2021 of Rules of Procedure of HSAC provides: “Section . Parties.- Every action or proceeding must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.” And Section 2, Rule 3 of Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who is the party who stands to benefit or suffer from the judgment in the suit. Accordingly, a suit filed by a person who is not a party- in-interest must be dismissed (Tankiko vs. Cesar, G.R. 131277, February 2, 1999) on the ground of lack of cause of action (Spouses Oco vs. Limbaring, G.R. 161298, January 31, 2006). Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as: “Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. A_cause of action is the act or omission by which a party Violates _a right of another.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The essential elements of a cause of action are (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate Page | 4such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. In the instant case, the above-mentioned essential elements are not present to be invoked by the individual Complainants. Considering that the party-in-interest here is BRAI and not Melanio Del Castillo, Manuel de Dios, Flora Mari, Alicia Villarama and the 21 Home Owners and Lot Owners in the area of Antipolo City, this Honorable Office has no recourse but to dismiss their case. Anent the second issue, this branch finds it that the existence of BAHAI is not redundant. In their Complaint, the Complainants invoked the three (3) provisions of laws, namely: Section 4 of R.A. 9904 and Sections 20 & 26 of IRR of R.A. 9904. As contended by the Respondent, the said provisions will not apply to BRAI and BAHAI because the Jurisdictional Map where BRAI has jurisdiction over Home Owners and Lot Owners did not cover the alleged Area 15 in the area of Antipolo City. So, legally and technically speaking no amount of whatever claim made by any individual or institution, activities or testimonies can change that. “Res ipsa loquitur”, the documents used by BRAI 2005 will speak for itself that its Jurisdictional Map covers only the area of Cainta, Rizal. Further, the creation of BAHAI does not even require any referendum from the Home Owners and Lot Owners of area in Antipolo City for them to decide and there is no issue of separating themselves from BRAI 2005 because their area is legally and technically not within BRAI 2005 Jurisdictional Map. Anent the third issue, this branch finds that the DHSUD did not commit errors in issuing a Certificate of Incorporation to BAHAI. Page |5The DHSUD did not commit errors in issuing Certificate of Incorporation to BAHAI pursuant to existing laws. The Respondent followed strictly the provisions of Sections 20, 22 and 25 of IRR RA 9904, Rule 5, on Registration of Homeowners Association. It submitted its Jurisdictional Map and did not encroach or violate the Jurisdictional Map of BRAI 2005. The DHSUD functions as the Regulatory Body for the registration of all HOA all over the Philippines. When it issued a Certificate of Incorporation, either provisional or permanent, that act enjoyed a presumption of regularity, that is, the act was done in the manner prescribed by law and by an officer authorized by law to do it. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until_it_is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the reasonable intendment will be made in support of the ing lawful or ful tructi houl in favor of its lawfulness. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) - REGION IV, MANILA vs. AMOR HACHERO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PALAWAN. G.R. No. 200973, May 30, 2016) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In the case at bar, the Complainants failed to rebut the said presumption of regularity. Anent the fourth issue, this branch finds the Complainant jointly and severally liable to pay the Respondent of the legal and litigation expenses. The Complainants acted whimsically and capriciously, and disregarding the Jurisdictional Map of BRAI in its application as HOA which covered only the area of Cainta, Rizal. The Complainants knew from the very beginning that the area of Page | 6