G.R. No. L-52361 ETC-SUNSET VIEW V. CAMPOS PDF

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-52361 April 27, 1981
SUNSET VIEW CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR. OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE,
BRANCH XXX, PASAY CITY and AGUILAR-BERNARES
REALTY, respondents.
G.R. No. L-52524 April 27, 1981
SUNSET VIEW CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH XXX, PASAY CITY, and LIM SIU
LENG, respondents.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
These two cases which involve similar facts and raise Identical questions of law
were ordered consolidated by resolution of this Court dated March 17, 1980. 1
The petitioner, Sunset View Condominium Corporation, in both cases, is a
condominium corporation within the meaning of Republic Act No. 4726 in relation
to a duly registered Amended Master Deed with Declaration of Restrictions of the
Sunset View Condominium Project located at 2230 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
of which said petitioner is the Management Body holding title to all the common
and limited common areas. 2
G.R. NO. 52361
The private respondent, Aguilar-Bernares Realty, a sole proprietorship with
business name registered with the Bureau of Commerce, owned and operated by
the spouses Emmanuel G. Aguilar and Zenaida B. Aguilar, is the assignee of a
unit, "Solana", in the Sunset View Condominium Project with La Perla
Commercial, Incorporated, as assignor. 3 The La Perla Commercial, Incorporated bought the
4
"Solana" unit on installment from the Tower Builders, Inc. The petitioner, Sunset View Condominium
Corporation, filed for the collection of assessments levied on the unit against Aguilar-Bernares Realty,
private respondent herein, a complaint dated June 22, 1979 docketed as Civil Case No. 7303-P of the
Court of First Instance of Pasay City, Branch XXX. The private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on the grounds (1) that the complaint does not state a cause of action: (2) that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject or nature other action; and (3) that there is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause. The petitioner filed its opposition thereto. The motion to dismiss
was granted on December 11, 1979 by the respondent Judge who opined that the private respondent is,
pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4726, a "holder of a separate interest" and consequently, a
shareholder of the plaintiff condominium corporation; and that "the case should be properly filed with the
Securities & Exchange Commission which has exclusive original jurisdiction on controversies arising
between shareholders of the corporation." the motion for reconsideration thereof having been denied, the
petitioner, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge, filed the instant petition for
certiorari praying that the said orders be set aside.
G.R. NO. 52524

The petitioner filed its amended complaint dated July 16, 1979 docketed as Civil
Case No. 14127 of Branch I of the City Court of Pasay City for the collection of
overdue accounts on assessments and insurance premiums and the interest
thereon amounting to P6,168 06 as of March 31, 1979 against the private
respondent Lim Siu Leng 5to whom was assigned on July 11, 1977 a unit called "Alegria" of the
6
Sunset. View Condominium Project by Alfonso Uy who had entered into a "Contract to Buy and Sell" with
7
Tower Builders, Inc. over the said unit on installment basis.
The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction, alleging that the amount sought to be collected is an assessment.
The correctness and validity of which is certain to involve a dispute between her
and the petitioner corporation; that she has automatically become, as a
purchaser of the condominium unit, a stockholder of the petitioner pursuant to
Section 2 of the Condominium Act, Republic Act No. 4726; that the dispute is
intra-corporate and is consequently under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Securities & Exchange Commission as provided in Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A. 8
The petitioner filed its opposition thereto, alleging that the private respondent
who had not fully paid for the unit was not the owner thereof, consequently was
not the holder of a separate interest which would make her a stockholder, and
that hence the case was not an intra-corporate dispute. 9
After the private respondent had filed her answer to the opposition to the motion
to dismiss 10 of the petitioner, the trial court issued an order dated August 13, 1979 denying the motion
11
to dismiss. The private respondent's motion for reconsideration thereof was denied by the trial court in
12
its Order dated September 19, 1979.
The private respondent then appealed pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 40 of the

Rules of Court to the Court of First Instance, where the appeal was docketed as
Civil Case No. 7530P. The petitioner filed its "Motion to Dismiss Appeal" on the
ground that the order of the trial court appealed from is interlocutory. 13
The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied and the parties were ordered to
submit their respective memorandum on the issue raised before the trial court
and on the disputed order of the trial judge. 14 After the parties had submitted their
respective memoranda on the matter, the respondent Judge issued an order dated December 14, 1979 in
which he directed that "the appeal is hereby dismissed and d the judgment of the lower court is reversed.
The case is dismissed and the parties are directed to ventilate their controversy with the Securities &
15
Exchange Commission. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof was denied in an order
16
dated January 14, 1980. Hence this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the respondent Judge.
Issues Common to Both Cases

It is admitted that the private respondents in both cases have not yet fully paid
the purchase price of their units. The Identical issues raised in both petitions are
the following:
1. Is a purchaser of a condominium unit in the condominium project managed by
the petitioner, who has not yet fully paid the purchase price thereof, automaticaly
a ,stockholder of the petitioner Condominium Corporation
2. Is it the regular court or the Securities & Exchange Commission that has
jurisdiction over cases for collection of assessments assessed by the
Condominium Corporation on condominium units the full purchase price of which
has not been paid?
The private respondents in both cases argue that every purchaser of a
condominium unit, regardless of whether or not he has fully paid the purchase
price, is a "holder of a separate interest" mentioned in Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 4726, otherwise known as "The Condominium Act" and is automatically a
shareholder of the condominium corporation.
The contention has no merit. Section 5 of the Condominium Act expressly
provides that the shareholding in the Condominium Corporation will be conveyed
only in a proper case. Said Section 5 provides:
Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or other
space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the
undivided interests in the common areas or, in a proper case, the
membership or shareholding in the condominium corporation ...
It is clear then that not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder of
the condominium corporation. The Condominium Act leaves to the Master Deed
the determination of when the shareholding will be transferred to the purchaser of
a unit. Thus, Section 4 of said Act provides:
The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to be

divided into condominium only if there shall be recorded in the
Register of Deeds of the province or city in which the property lies
and duly annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the land
... an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among others,
the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Astatement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be
acquired by the purchaser in the separate units and in the common
areas of the condominium project ...
The Amended Master Deeds in these cases, which were duly registered in the
Register of Deeds, and which contain, by mandate of Section 4, a statement of
the exact nature of the interest acquired by a purchaser of a unit, provide in
Section 6 of Part 1:
(d) Each Unit owner shall, as an essential condition to such
ownership, acquire stockholding in the Condominium Corporation
herein below provided ... 17
The Amended Master Deeds likewise provide in Section 7 (b), thus.
(b) All unit owners shall of necessity become stockholders of the
Condominium Corporation. TOWER shall acquire all the shares of
stock of SUNSET VIEW and shall allocate the said shares to the
units in proportion to the appurtenant interest in the COMMON
AREAS and LIMITED COMMON AREAS as provided in Section 6
(b) above. Said shares allocated are mere appurtenances of each
unit, and therefore, the same cannot be transferred, conveyed,
encumbered or otherwise disposed of separately from the Unit ... 18
It is clear from the above-quoted provisions of the Master Deeds that the
shareholding in the Condominium Corporation is inseparable from the unit to
which it is only an appurtenant and that only the owner of a unit is a shareholder
in the Condominium Corporation.
Subparagraph (a) of Part 1, Section 6, of the Master Deeds determines when
and under what conditions ownership of a unit is acquired by a purchaser thus:
(a) The purchaser of a unit shall acquire title or ownership of such
Unit, subject to the terms and conditions of the instrument conveying
the unit to such purchaser and to the terms and conditions of any
subsequent conveyance under which the purchaser takes title to the
Unit, and subject further to this MASTER DEED ... 19
The instrument conveying the unit "Solana" in G.R. NO. 52361 is the "Contract to
Buy and Sell" dated September 13, 1977, Annex "D", while that conveying the
unit "Alegria" in G.R. NO. 52524 is the "Contract to Buy and Sell" dated May 12,
1976, Annex "C". In both deeds of conveyance, it is provided:
4. Upon full payment by the BUYER of the total purchase price and
full compliance by the BUYER of an its obligations herein, the
SELLER will convey unto the BUYER, as soon as practicable after
completion of the construction, full and absolute title in and to the
subject unit, to the shares of stock pertaining thereto and to an rights
and interests in connection therewith ... 20
The share of stock appurtenant to the unit win be transferred accordingly to the
purchaser of the unit only upon full payment of the purchase price at which time
he will also become the owner of the unit. Consequently, even under the
contract, it is only the owner of a unit who is a shareholder of the Condominium
Corporation. Inasmuch as owners is conveyed only upon full payment of the
purchase price, it necessarily follows that a purchaser of a unit who has not paid
the full purchase price thereof is not The owner of the unit and consequently is
not a shareholder of the Condominium Corporation.
That only the owner of a unit is a stockholder of the Condominium Corporation is
inferred from Section 10 of the Condominium Act which reads:
SEC. 10. ... Membership in a condominium corporation, regardless
of whether it is a stock or non-stock corporation, shall not be
transferable separately from the condominium unit of which it is an
appurtenance When a member or stockholder ceases is to own a
unit in the project in which the condominium corporation owns or
holds the common areas, he shall automatically cease to be a
member or stockholder of the condominium corporation.
Pursuant to the above statutory provision, ownership of a unit is a condition sine
qua non to being a shareholder in the condominium corporation. It follows that a
purchaser of a unit who is not yet the owner thereof for not having fully paid the
full purchase price, is not a shareholder By necessary implication, the "separate
interest" in a condominium, which entitles the holder to become automatically a
share holder in the condominium corporation, as provided in Section 2 of the
Condominium Act, can be no other than ownership of a unit. This is so because
nobody can be a shareholder unless he is the owner of a unit and when he

ceases to be the owner, he also ceases automatically to be a shareholder.
The private respondents, therefore, who have not fully paid the purchase price of
their units and are consequently not owners of their units are not members or
shareholders of the petitioner condominium corporation,
Inasmuch as the private respondents are not shareholders of the petitioner
condominium corporation, the instant case for collection cannot be a "controversy
arising out of intracorporate or partnership relations between and among
stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members
or associates, respectively" which controversies are under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities & Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 5 (b) of P.D. No. 902- A. The subject matters of the instant cases
according to the allegations of the complaints are under the jurisdiction of the
regular courts: that of G.R. NO. 52361, which is for the collection of P8,335.38
with interest plus attorney's fees equivalent to the principal or a total of more than
P10,000.00 is under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance; and that of
G.R. NO. 52524, which is for the collection of P6,168-06 is within the jurisdiction
of the City Court.
In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to resolve the issue raised in
G.R. NO. 52524 of whether an order of the City Court denying a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction can be appealed to the Court of First
Instance.
WHEREFORE, the questioned orders of the respondent Judge dated December
11, 1979 and January 4, 1980 in Civil Case No. 7303-P, subject matter of the
Petition in G.R. No. 52361, are set aside and said Judge is ordered to try the
case on the merits. The orders dated December 14, 1979 and January 14, 1980
in Civil Case No. 7530-P, subject matter of the petition in G.R. No. 52524 are set
aside and the case is ordered remanded to the court a quo, City Court of Pasay
City, for trial on the merits, with costs against the private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo of G.R. NO. 52524, p. 170.

2 Petition, G.R. NO. 52361, Rollo, p. 2.
3 Deed of Assignment, Rollo of G.R. No. 52361. pp. 28-29.
4 Contract to Buy and Sell, Idem., Rollo. pp. 30-33.
5 Annex "F", Rollo, pp- 60-62.
6 Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 52-54.
7 Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 45-50.
8 Annex "G", Rollo, pp- 63-66.
9 Annex "H", Rollo, pp- 67-70.
10 Annex "I", Rollo, pp- 71-76.
11 Annex"J",Rollo ,p .77.
12 Annex "M", Rollo, p. 84.
13 Annex "O", Rollo, pp. 87-89.
14 Annex "R", Rollo, p. 102.
15 Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 42-43.
16 Annex " B ", Rollo, p. 4 4.
17 Petition, G.R. NO. 52361, Rollo, p. 11.
18 Idem Rollo, pp. 11 - 12.
19 Idem., Rollo, p. 1 1.
20 Annex "C", G.R. NO. 52524, Rollo, p. 47.

G.R. No. L-52361 ETC-SUNSET VIEW V. CAMPOS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-52361 ETC-SUNSET VIEW V. CAMPOS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-52361 ETC-SUNSET VIEW V. CAMPOS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. NO. 52524

The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of

The private respondent then appealed pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 40 of the

Issues Common to Both Cases

The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to be

nobody can be a shareholder unless he is the owner of a unit and when he

1 Rollo of G.R. NO. 52524, p. 170.

You might also like