Presley vs.

Bel-Air Village Association

G.R. Number 86774 | 201 SCRA 13 | August 21, 1991 | Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Petition: Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner: Enedina Presley
Respondents: Bel-Air Village Association, Inc and Court of Appeals
Article III, Section 10 (commercial zone)

DOCTRINE
Contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions
are annotated on the torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile
with the legitimate exercise of police power.

FACTS

A complaint for specific performance and damages with preliminary

injunction was filed by Bel-Air Vilage Association (BAVA) against
Teofilo Almendras and Rosario Almendras (they are now deceased
and substituted by Enedina Presley) for violation of the Deed
Restrictions of Bel-Air Subdivision that the subject house and lot shall
be used only for residential and not for commercial purposes and for
non-payment of association dues to plaintiff BAVA amounting to
3,803.55
The Almendras were registered owners of a house and lot in said
Village, and were also members of BAVA pursuant to the Deed
Restrictions.
Presley, as lessee of the property, is owner and operator of Hot Pan
de Sal Store located in the same address.
When BAVA came to know of the existence of Pan de Sal, it sent a
letter to the defendants asking them to desist from operating the store.
Almendras contended that there was no written contract between him
and BAVA;
o only a consensual contract existed whereby Almendras regularly
pays his dues and assessments to BAVA for such services as
security, garbage collection and maintenance and repair of Jupiter
St. When the services were withdrawn by BAVA, there was no
more reason for the latter to demand payment od such dues and
assessments.
Trial court rendered decision in favor of BAVA, affirmed by CA. Hence,
the instant petition.

ISSUE
W/N Bel-Air Village is considered residential for the purposes of enjoining
petitioners from continuing their Pan de Sal Store - No

RULING & RATIO

1. No, Bel-Air Village is considered a commercial zone.

a. BAVA assails the Courts decision in the Sangalang case, more

specifically the Courts interpretation of Ordinance no 81-01
passed by the Metro Manila Commission. It avers that due to the
multitude of issues raised and numerous pleadings filed by the
different contending parties, the Court was misled and erred in
concluding that Jupiter St. was classified as a high density
commercial zone when in fact, it is still considered as a
residential zone.
i. SANGALANG CASE: the court found Ayala Corporation not
liable due to the opening of Jupiter Street to the general
public. They have no liability not only because of the fact
that Jupiter Street is not covered by the restrictive
easements based on the deed restrictions, but chiefly
because the National Govt itself, through the Metro
Manila Commission, had reclassified Jupiter Street into a
high density commercial zone
b. The court has carefully examined the pleadings but have found
no reason to reconsider the Sangalang doctrine.
c. The private respondents have only come up with mere
assertions and allegations.
i. It faield to present any proofs or convincing arguments to
substantiate its claim that Jupiter Street is still classified
as a residential zone
ii. No new zoning reclassification, ordinance, certification
was brought to the attention of the court
d. The court cannot reverse a precedent and rule favorably for the
private respondent on the strength of mere inferences.
e. Deed of Restrictions is valid can be enforced against the
petitioner. However, these contractual stipulations can be
impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of
police power.
f. In Sangalang, the court held that as far as Bel-Air subdivision is
concerned, they are valid and enforceable. But they are subject
to the overriding demands, needs, and interests of the greater
number as the State may determine in the legitimate exercise of
police power, so it cannot contravene law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.
g. Jupiter Street has been highly commercialized since the passage
of Ordinance 81-01.
i. The records indicate that commercial buildings, offices,
restaurants, and stores have already sprouted in the
area.
ii. We, therefore, see no reason why the petitioner should
be singled out and prohibited from putting up her hot pan
de sal store.
Page 1 of 1