DECISION

This is an action for expulsion from a homeowners association.

After service of summons, respondents filed their answer traversing the material
allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, a preliminary conference was conducted, but
as there was no amicable settlement reached between the parties, they were then
required to submit their respective position papers and draft decisions. Both complied
accordingly.

Briefly, the complaint alleges, among others, that complainant - NAPICO Homeowners
Association - I, Inc. or NAPICO, for brevity - is a non-stock and non-profit homeowners
association established and existing under/by virtue of the laws of the country; that it is
the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Napico,

Manggahan, Pasig City covered and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
119668 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City; that complainant's President,
Anitanida T. Montero is authorized to represent the association as shown by a Board
Resolution (No. 14-001) adopted by the Board of Directors of complainant-association
dated January 26, 2004 ~and a Secretary's Certificate dated September 13, 2004.

, As alleged in its complaint, NAPICO avers that respondents are supposedly members
of the complainant-association who either failed and refused to pay membership· fees,
monthly dues, contributions, special assessment and their monthly amortization of the
mortgage loan secured under the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) financed by the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) for the acquisition of the
aforesaid parcel of land then owned by the Metropolitan Development Authority.

Respondents allegedly failed to submit papers and documents required by the National
Housing Authority (NHA) that acted as originator in the acquisition of the subject parcel
of land. The supposed failure and refusal of the respondents to abide by rules and
regulations of the complainant had been referred to its Grievance and Adjudication
Committee pursuant to its Constitution and By-Laws, but respondents did not heed the
notices sent to them, for which reason, they were recommended for expulsion from the
association. Acting on the recommendation of the committee, complainant passed a
resolution to delete the names of the respondents from its roster, which was purportedly
ratified in a meeting of NAPICO's general assembly held on February 16, 2003.

Complainants moreover aver that respondents have failed and refused to abide by the
rules and regulations of NAPICO when they affiliated with another homeowners
association, the Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Taga Manggahan (NASATAMA, INC.)

In their ANSWER, respondents disputed complainant's allegations and claimed that

they have supposedly been occupying their respective premises; many years back
when they accepted their assigned lots and signed the lease Purchase Agreement with
complainant on their supposed honest belief that the latter is the legitimate homeowners
association and real owner of the subject parcel of land.

Allegedly, when respondents discovered that complainant was not the legitimate

1
homeowners association and real owner of their respective lots, they resigned from
complainant-association.

Respondents likewise claimed that the subject property is part of the forty-three (43)
hectare tract of land which forms part of the Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate mentioned
in the Order dated 22 December 1994 in Special Proceedings No. IR-l10 of the Fifth
Judicial Region, Regional Trial court, Branch 34, Riga City in the case entitled, "In the
Matter of the Settlement of Estate of Hermogenes Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez,
Macario J. Rodriguez, Delfin Rodriguez and Consuelo Rodriguez, Jaime M. Robles,
Oppositor-Petitioner".

On July 12, 2004, the appointment and authority of the judicial administrator of the
Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate, Jaime M. "Toting" Robles was supposedly affirmed by
the Supreme Court. Just after the judicial appointment of the administrator of the
Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate, Jaime M. "Toting" Robles allegedly allowed
respondents to occupy their respective premises. Respondents then joined the
supposed recognized and legitimate homeowners association, Nagkakaisang Samahan
ng Taga-Manggahan, Inc. (NASATAMA), apparently led by the judicially appointed
administrator of the Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate, and thus no longer paid attention to
complainant's many calls to join the latter's various activities.

In addition to the foregoing defenses, respondents also assailed the jurisdiction of this
Office over their persons as they are purportedly not members of the complainant nor
were they supposedly benefited by the Eighteen Million Pesos (P18,OOO,000.00)
mortgage loan by complainant under the Community Mortgage Program (CMP)
financed by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

They further alleged that the filing of the instant case against some of the female
respondents is a fragrant violation of Section 4, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which mandates that husband and wife shall sue and be sued jointly, hence,
the husbands of the female respondents, being parties-in-interest should have
supposedly been impleaded as parties-respondents in this case, they, being
indispensable parties. Respondents likewise impugned complainant's legal personality to
institute the instant complaint as the authority of the complainant is not purportedly
supported by Board Resolution of the corporation so that the complaint itself is allegedly
fatally defective.

Respondents also put into question complainant's title (TCT No. PT-119668) over the
subject property as the same is allegedly of dubious origin, if not an outright
fake/forgery, because the same has supposedly no title of origin.; Also disputed by
respondents is the capacity of complainant to secure the loan of Eighteen Million Six
Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Seventy Three Pesos and 88/100 (P18,628,073.88)
from the National Housing Authority (should have been National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation (NHMFC) considering its supposed paltry capital of only Ten
Thousand Pesos (Pl0,000.00).

After consideration of the parties' respective pleadings, the pertinent issues and·
questions that are determinative of this controversy may be narrowed down as follows:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THIS OFFICE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF

2
 THE RESPONDENTS; and,

2. WHETHER OR NOT Complainant HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

EXPULSION AGAINST Respondents.

Respondents assail the jurisdiction of this Office over their persons arguing that they are
purportedly not members of complainant nor were they supposedly benefited by the
eighteen million peso (P18,000,000.00) mortgage loan of complainant under the
Community Mortgage Program (CMP) financed by the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

. We reject this contention of respondents.

While respondents attempt to repudiate their membership with the complainant in

consequence of their membership with another association, it is undeniable that, prior to
their breakaway or disaffiliation from it NAPICO was the true and/or legitimate
homeowners association representing their rights and interest in all matters pertaining
to their acquisition of the whole subject property and the parcels of lot owing to them
individually or on per family/household-basis. To demonstrate their desire or purpose of
membership with NAPICO, respondents even signed a petition signifying their intention
to be placed under the Community Mortgage Program (CMP), and for that purpose, to
cooperate· with the complainant-association. Respondents admit this fact in their
position paper.

There being no proof adduced by respondents to the effect that NAPICO Homeowners
Association-I, Inc. had ceased to be NHMFC's funding beneficiary or had been replaced
by another association in its records as borrower under the community mortgage
program, covering the land in question which is now occupied by members of NAPICO,
this Office cannot uphold the argument that the respondents - after their membership in
the association had been favorably considered by NHMFC - can freely dissociate
themselves therefrom without encountering liabilities that befits members who
irresponsibly and for some imagined convenience renounce their obligations as such.

Complainant having obtained a land acquisition loan from NHMFC in the amount of
P18,628,073.88 secured by way of real estate mortgage over the property covered by
TCT No. 119668 registered in its name, which embraces the premises occupied by
respondents, and from which loan grant the respondents' rights in their occupied lots
have been factored and benefited, the respondents' act of renouncing their membership
with and their concomitant duties to the association while deriving benefit from or taking
advantage of the fruits of its contributions or services to the members smacks of
condescension and ingratitude which this Office shall not countenance.

It is therefore in bad taste that respondents repudiate the jurisdiction of this "Office on
the simple pretext that they are not members of the association. While every citizen
have the right to freely associate or choose whom one may associate or correlate as
well as to dissociate later, this freedom cannot be exercised in derogation of obligations
and the effects of contracts that one has created in consequence of his prior
membership. Respondents cannot, therefore, successfully shake off or elude the
regulatory authority of this Board over homeowners association through the subterfuge
or claim that they are not members of the association.

3
Indeed, if the respondents' contention would be upheld, the complainant and its abiding
members would be left with the onerous obligation of paying the loan obligation for
respondents while the latter enriches themselves unduly, holds on to their position and
lives merrily under the mantle of protection of the association.

As members of NAPICO Homeowners Association, Inc., or at least, recalcitrant and

noncompliant members thereof, and the instant dispute being an intra-corporate
controversy, this action definitely falls within the competence and jurisdiction of this
Board.

This brings us now to the second issue.

Respondents' stubborn actuations and selfish behavior towards their association, as

well as the handling of their attendant obligations to it, does not speak well of the
respondents. Indeed, their attitude of repudiating their association and their duties to it
deserves to be dealt with decisively against them, even if this should bring about their
expulsion for acts prejudicial and damaging to the association.

The principles underlying the government's program for community mortgage program
cannot be taken too lightly by respondents, or licentiously exploited by them to the
detriment of the more deserving members of the association. State or private funds and
guarantees extended for the purpose of aiding urban communities to acquire titles to
lands occupied by them, either informally or by lease from their owners, are strains to
the national economy and must be received and handled by beneficiaries like the herein
respondents - with an acute sense of duty and responsibility. If the contentions of
respondents were to be sustained, then indeed they, shall take great pleasure and
advantage in their adverse possession of the lands und~ the domain and name of the
association, perhaps free from intrusions from other interested members, while the
association labors under neck-deep indebtedness to the government or private money
lenders.

At any rate, the end to their membership, which respondents after all want to secure for
themselves in this controversy, can be realized with no difficulty. They have voluntarily
chosen to repudiate their association and their essential obligation to it. The association
need not, therefore, wage a protracted litigation to keep them and should let go of
respondents. As consequence, the respondents must voluntarily set out and peacefully
renounce or surrender to the association all that it has acquired to its credit, including
the lands that respondents presently occupy which inherently attaches to the
membership that they now wish to discard.

This Office finally resolves this controversy by lastly passing its judgment on the
respondents' protestation that the filing of the instant case against some of the female
respondents violates Section 4, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
mandates that husband and wife shall sue and be sued jointly, is not impressed with
merit.

As correctly argued by complainant, rules of procedure are mere tools designed to

facilitate the attainment of justice; their strict and rigid application which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always
be avoided. If a strict application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, or bar

4
the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a
particular case from the operation of the rules.

At any rate, under Rule II, Section 1 of the 2004 Rules of Procedure of this Board,
including even its predecessor rules, a complaint may be filed by either spouse even if
only one of them is a signatory to the complaint. This rule can be applied in the case of
some respondents in this case, by analogy, thus anyone of the spouses may face some
suits before this Board without joining his/her spouse. The above rule is in keeping with
laws and rules that promote gender-friendly policies of the government towards the
opposite sexes.

Respondents similarly assert that the authority of complainant to sue, being a

corporation, was not spelled out in a board resolution to that effect.

We do not agree.

A perusal of the complaint as well as complainant's position paper would reveal the
existence not only of a Board Resolution but also of a Corporate Secretary's Certificate,
declaring and resolving, "x x x to authorize the President/, Ms. Anitanida T. Montero to
represent the association in any barangay and court proceedings against the
recalcitrant members and non-members, to make admissions, stipulations and to enter
into a reasonable compromise."

The complainant's title (TCT No. PT-119668) over the subject property was also put in
question by respondents. Allegedly, the same is of dubious origin.

This Board does not sit as a land registration court or tribunal for the settlement of land
disputes with powers to determine, in a case properly filed before it, whether a party has
the better title or right as against another party over a real property. Suffice it to state at
this juncture, however, that by virtue of its title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. PT-
119668, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City, the complainant possess the'
real right, equitable title, and legal possession over the parcel of land it has acquired~
with the assistance of NHMFC.

As correctly pointed out by complainant, the title in its name cannot be the subject of
any collateral attack, much less before this Board. Neither may this Board itself ascribe
any cloud on the title of the real property nor sustain any proceeding or instrument
adverse to it in this case. As such, the title in the name of complainants unless finally
declared by a competent tribunal as spurious or a nullity in a direct proceeding in
accordance with P.O. No. 1529 - cannot be altered, modified or cancelled through the
instant proceeding.

This Office shall not, therefore, dwell further on the assertion of respondents that the
subject parcel of land is located within the 43-hedare tract of land of the Hermogenes
Estate under Titulo de Propriedad de Terrenos Decree 01-4 and Original Certificate of
Title No. 12022; or the defense set forth by complainants that P. D. No. 892 had
abolished the system of land registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and that the
said decree provides that all lands registered under the Spanish Mortgage law are to be
treated and classified as unregistered lands.

5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
EXPULSION of herein respondents from the roll of members of NAPICO Homeowners
Association-I, Inc. and forfeiting whatever benefits due them from the association.

All other claims and counterclaims are denied for lack of merit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.