[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
516 views2 pages

Maria Luisa Park Assoc Inc VS Almendras Et Al

This case involved a dispute between homeowners (respondents) and their homeowners association (petitioner) over an alleged violation of the deed of restriction prohibiting multi-dwelling structures. The respondents filed a complaint in court, but the petitioner claimed the dispute must go through arbitration per the association by-laws. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals then granted the respondents' petition. The Supreme Court ruled that the parties were bound by the arbitration agreement in the by-laws and did not make a genuine effort to arbitrate, so the case must first go through the arbitration process before any court action.

Uploaded by

joy dayag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
516 views2 pages

Maria Luisa Park Assoc Inc VS Almendras Et Al

This case involved a dispute between homeowners (respondents) and their homeowners association (petitioner) over an alleged violation of the deed of restriction prohibiting multi-dwelling structures. The respondents filed a complaint in court, but the petitioner claimed the dispute must go through arbitration per the association by-laws. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals then granted the respondents' petition. The Supreme Court ruled that the parties were bound by the arbitration agreement in the by-laws and did not make a genuine effort to arbitrate, so the case must first go through the arbitration process before any court action.

Uploaded by

joy dayag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ADR CASE DIGEST

MARIA LUISA PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. SAMANTHA MARIE T.


ALMENDRAS and PIA ANGELA T. ALMENDRAS, Respondents

G.R. NO. 171763: June 5, 2009

FACTS:

On February 6, 2002, respondents Samantha Marie T. Almendras and Pia Angela T.


Almendras purchased from MRO Development Corporation a residential lot located
in Maria Luisa Estate Park, Banilad, Cebu City. After some time, respondents filed
with petitioner Maria Luisa Park Association, Incorporated (MLPAI) an application to
construct a residential house which was approved.

Upon ocular inspection of the house, MLPAI found out that respondents violated the
prohibition against multi-dwelling stated in MLPAI's Deed of Restriction.
Consequently, MLPAI sent a letter to the respondents, demanding that they rectify
the structure; otherwise, it will be constrained to forfeit respondents' construction
bond and impose stiffer penalties.

Respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a complaint for
Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Annulment of Provisions of Articles and By-Laws with
Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction.

MLPAI moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and failure to comply with the arbitration clause provided for in MLPAI's by-laws.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) that has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Respondents moved for reconsideration but
their motion was denied.

Aggrieved, the respondents questioned the dismissal of their complaint in a petition


for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether there is no other relief and remedy available to petitioner to avert


the conduct of a void proceeding than the present recourse.

HELD:

No. The terms of Article XII of the MLPAI by-laws clearly express the intention of
the parties to bring first to the arbitration process all disputes between them before
a party can file the appropriate action. The agreement to submit all disputes to
arbitration is a contract. As such, the arbitration agreement binds the parties
thereto, as well as their assigns and heirs. Respondents, being members of MLPAI,
are bound by its by-laws, and are expected to abide by it in good faith.
In the instant case, we observed that while both parties exchanged correspondence
pertaining to the alleged violation of the Deed of Restriction, they, however, made
no earnest effort to resolve their differences in accordance with the arbitration
clause provided for in their by-laws. Mere exchange of correspondence will not
suffice much less satisfy the requirement of arbitration. Arbitration being the mode
of settlement between the parties expressly provided for in their by-laws, the same
should be respected. Unless an arbitration agreement is such as absolutely to close
the doors of the courts against the parties, the courts should look with favor upon
such amicable arrangements.

You might also like