G.R. No.

211353, June 10, 2019

William Kwong Mngt, et.al, petitioners, v. Diamon Homeowners & Residents Association, respondent
Leonen, J.

Facts
 Diamond Subdivision, faced security issues due to unrestricted public access, leading to crimes and
disturbances.
 Diamond Subdivision implements the “No Sticker, No ID, No Entry" Policy to address security concerns.
 William Kwong, a resident and motel owner within the subdivision, objected to the policy, citing concerns
over its impact on his business and the public's right to access the subdivision roads, which had been
donated to the City of Angeles.
 The dispute escalated through the HLURB (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) to the Office of the
President,

Court of Appeal Ruling

 The Court of Appeals overturned the Office of the President's decision.
 The Court of Appeals recognized the homeowners' association's right to regulate access to subdivision roads
to ensure the safety, security, and general welfare of its residents,
 in line with the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations.

 Hence, a petition was filed by William Kwong before the Supreme Court.

Issue on Police Power

Whether or not the homeowners' association's implementation of the "No Sticker, No ID, No Entry" Policy to
regulate access to subdivision roads donated to the local government was a valid exercise of police power.

Supreme Court Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the policy implemented by the Diamond Homeowners, which required
stickers or IDs for entry into the subdivision, was valid.

This policy was designed to address security concerns within the subdivision and was not found to unlawfully
restrict public access to the subdivision's roads, which had been donated to the local government and were
considered public property.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while property ownership comes with rights, these rights are not absolute
and can be regulated in the interest of the community's welfare.

The regulation of access to the subdivision was seen as a reasonable measure to address legitimate security
concerns without infringing on the public's rights or the local government's ownership of the roads.

The Supreme Court cited the security concerns validated by enacted Ordinance No. 132 and the rise in criminal
activities within the subdivision as substantial evidence supporting the need for the policy.

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of prioritizing community security over individual business
interests.

Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals .