Republic of the Philippines 397

SUPREME COURT
Manila VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 397
Sta. Clara Homeowners Association vs. Gaston
THIRD DIVISION No. 535, however, the HIGC assumed the regulatory and adjudicative
functions of the SEC over homeowners associations.
G.R. No. 141961 January 23, 2002 Same; Same; Same; Same; By virtue of paragraph 2 of EO 535, the
HIGC also assumed the SECs original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear
STA. CLARA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION thru its Board of Directors and decide cases involving controversies arising from intra-corporate or
composed of ARNEIL CHUA, LUIS SARROSA, JOCELYN GARCIA, MA. partnership relations with respect to homeowners associations.Explicitly
MILAGROS VARGAS, LORENZO LACSON, ERNESTO PICCIO, DINDO vesting such powers in the HIGC is paragraph 2 of EO 535, which we quote
ILAGAN, DANILO GAMBOA JR. and RIZZA DE LA RAMA; SECURITY
hereunder: 2. In addition to the powers and functions vested under the
GUARD CAPILLO; "JOHN DOE"; and SANTA CLARA ESTATE,
INC., petitioners,
Home Financing Act, the Corporation, shall have among others, the
vs. following additional powers: (a) x x x; and exercise all the powers,
Spouses VICTOR MA. GASTON and LYDIA GASTON, respondents. authorities and responsibilities that are vested in the Securities and
Exchange Commission with respect to home owners associations, the
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED provision of Act 1459, as amended by P.D. 902-A, to the contrary
notwithstanding; (b) To regulate and supervise the activities and
Sta. Clara Homeowners Association vs. Gaston operations of all houseowners associations registered in accordance
G.R. No. 141961. January 23, 2002. *
therewith. Moreover, by virtue of the aforequoted provision, the HIGC also
STA. CLARA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION thru its Board of assumed the SECs original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
Directors composed of ARNEIL CHUA, LUIS SARROSA, JOCELYN cases involving controversies arising from intra-corporate or partnership
GARCIA, MA. MILAGROS VARGAS, LORENZO LACSON, relations.
ERNESTO PICCIO, DINDO ILAGAN, DANILO GAMBOA, JR. and Same; Same; Same; Same; Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
RIZZA DE LA RAMA; Security Guard CAPILLO; JOHN DOE; and (HLURB); The powers and responsibilities, which had been vested in the
SANTA CLARA ESTATE, INC., petitioners, vs. Spouses VICTOR HIGC with respect to homeowners associations were later transferred to the
MA. GASTON and LYDIA GASTON, respondents. HLURB pursuant to R.A. 8763.The aforesaid powers and responsibilities,
which had been vested in the HIGC with respect to homeowners
Administrative Law; Subdivisions; Home Insurance and Guaranty associations, were later transferred to the Housing and Land Use
Corporation (HIGC); Jurisdiction; Originally, administrative supervision Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to Republic Act 8763.
over homeowners associations was vested by law in the Securities and Freedom of Association; The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
Exchange Commission, but, pursuant to Executive Order No. 535, the Home association includes the freedom not to associate.To support their
Insurance and Guaranty Corporation assumed the regulatory and contention that private respondents are members of the association,
adjudicative functions of the SEC over homeowners associations.HIGC petitioners cite the SCHAs Articles of Incorporation and By-laws which
was created pursuant to Republic Act 580. Originally, administrative provide that all landowners of the Sta. Clara Subdivision are automatically
supervision over homeowners associations was vested by law in the members of the SCHA. We are not persuaded. The constitutionally
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Pursuant to Executive Order guaranteed freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate.
(EO) The right to choose with whom one will associate oneself is the very
_______________ foundation and essence of that partnership. It should be noted that the
provision guarantees the right to form an association. It does not include
* THIRD DIVISION.
the right to compel others to form or join one.
1
 398 SCHA. In point of fact, they deny such membership. Thus, the HIGC has
no jurisdiction over the dispute.
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Same; Same; Same; The HIGC exercises limited jurisdiction over
ANNOTATED homeowners disputes.To reiterate, the HIGC exercises limited
Sta. Clara Homeowners Association vs. Gaston jurisdiction over homeowners disputes. The law confines its authority to
Same; Homeowners cannot be compelled to become members of a contro-
homeowners association by the simple expedient of including them in its 399
Articles of Incorporation and By-laws without their express or implied
consent; Memberships in homeowners associations may be acquired in
VOL. 374, JANUARY 23, 2002 399
various waysoften through deeds of sale, Torrens certificates or other Sta. Clara Homeowners Association vs. Gaston
forms of evidence of property ownership.More to the point, private versies that arise from any of the following intra-corporate relations:
respondents cannot be compelled to become members of the SCHA by the (1) between and among members of the association; (2) between any and/or
simple expedient of including them in its Articles of Incorporation and all of them and the association of which they are members; and (3) between
Bylaws without their express or implied consent. True, it may be to the the association and the state insofar as the controversy concerns its right
mutual advantage of lot owners in a subdivision to band themselves to exist as a corporate entity.
together to promote their common welfare. But that is possible only if the Pleadings and Practice; The test of the sufficiency of the allegations
owners voluntarily agree, directly or indirectly, to become members of the constituting the cause of action is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the
association. True also, memberships in homeowners associations may be court can render a valid judgment on the prayers.A defendant moving to
acquired in various waysoften through deeds of sale, Torrens certificates dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as
or other forms of evidence of property ownership. In the present case, having hypothetically admitted all the factual averments in the complaint.
however, other than the said Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, there The test of the sufficiency of the allegations constituting the cause of action
is no showing that private respondents have agreed to be SCHA members. is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid
Contracts; A contract is upheld as long as there is proof of consent, judgment on the prayers. This test implies that the issue must be passed
subject matter and cause.Clearly then, no privity of contract exists upon on the basis of the bare allegations in the complaint. The court does
between petitioners and private respondents. As a general rule, a contract not inquire into the truth of such allegations and declare them to be false.
is a meeting of minds between two persons. The Civil Code upholds the To do so would constitute a procedural error and a denial of the plaintiffs
spirit over the form; thus, it deems an agreement to exist, provided the right to due process.
essential requisites are present. A contract is upheld as long as there is Same; Causes of Action; Elements.A complaint states a cause of
proof of consent, subject matter and cause. Moreover, it is generally action when it contains these three essential elements: (1) the legal right
obligatory whatever form it may have been entered into. From the moment of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the
there is a meeting of minds between the parties, it is perfected. act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right.
Administrative Law; Home Insurance and Guarantee
Corporation; Jurisdiction; Where the complaint does not allege that the PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision and a resolution of
respondents are members of the homeowners association, the HIGC has no the Court of Appeals.
jurisdiction over the dispute.It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the The Law Office of Mirano, Mirano & Mirano for petitioners.
defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction Miguel F. Montinola for private respondents.
would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.
The Complaint does not allege that private respondents are members of the

2
PANGANIBAN, J.: "The complaint alleged that private respondents herein [were] residents
of San Jose Avenue, Sta. Clara Subdivision, Mandalagan, Bacolod City.
A motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action They purchased their lots in the said subdivision sometime in 1974, and
hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. It is not at the time of purchase, there was no mention or requirement of
dependent on the pleas or the theories set forth in the answer or the motion to membership in any homeowners association. From that time on, they
dismiss. Membership in a homeowners association is voluntary and cannot be have remained non-members of SCHA. They also stated that an
unilaterally forced by a provision in the associations articles of incorporation or arrangement was made wherein homeowners who [were] non-members
by-laws, which the alleged member did not agree to be bound to. of the association were issued non-member gatepass stickers for their
vehicles for identification by the security guards manning the
Statement of the Case subdivisions entrances and exits. This arrangement remained
undisturbed until sometime in the middle of March, 1998, when SCHA
disseminated a board resolution which decreed that only its members in
The Petition for Review before us assails the August 31, 1999 Decision1 and the
good standing were to be issued stickers for use in their vehicles.
February 11, 2000 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No.
Thereafter, on three separate incidents, Victor M. Gaston, the son of the
49130. The decretal portion of the challenged Decision reads as follows:
private respondents herein who lives with them, was required by the
guards on duty employed by SCHA to show his drivers license as a
"WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed prerequisite to his entrance to the subdivision and to his residence
Orders of the trial court are AFFIRMED. No costs."3 therein despite their knowing him personally and the exact location of his
residence. On 29 March 1998, private respondent herein Victor Ma.
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Gaston was himself prevented from entering the subdivision and
proceeding to his residential abode when petitioner herein security
The CA4 affirmed the Orders5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City guards Roger Capillo and a John Doe lowered the steel bar of the
(Branch 49) in Civil Case No. 98-10217, which had refused to dismiss herein KAMETAL gate of the subdivision and demanded from him his drivers
respondents Complaint for alleged lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of license for identification. The complaint further alleged that these acts of
action. the petitioners herein done in the presence of other subdivision owners
had caused private respondents to suffer moral damage.
The Facts
"On 3 April 1998, during the hearing of the private respondents
The factual antecedents of the case are summarized by the Court of Appeals in application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order before the
this wise: lower court, counsel for the petitioners informed the court that he would
be filing a motion to dismiss the case and made assurance that pending
"On 1 April 1998, Spouses Victor Ma. Gaston and Lydia M. Gaston, the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the private respondents
private respondents herein, filed a complaint for damages with would be granted unrestricted access to and from their place of
preliminary injunction/preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary residence.
restraining order before the Regional Trial Court in Negros Occidental at
Bacolod City against petitioners Santa Clara Homeowners Association "On 8 April 1998, petitioners herein filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
(SCHA for brevity) thru its Board of Directors, namely: Arneil Chua, Luis the trial court ha[d] no jurisdiction over the case as it involve[d] an intra-
Sarrosa, Jocelyn Garcia, Ma. Milagros Vargas, Lorenzo Lacson, Ernesto corporate dispute between SCHA and its members pursuant to Republic
Piccio, Dindo Ilagan, Danilo Gamboa, Jr., Rizza de la Rama and Security Act No. 580, as amended by Executive Order Nos. 535 and 90, much
Guard Capillo and John Doe, and Santa Clara Estate, Incorporated. The [less], to declare as null and void the subject resolution of the board of
case was docketed as Civil Case No 98-10217 and raffled to RTC- directors of SCHA, the proper forum being the Home Insurance (and
Branch 49, Bacolod City. Guaranty) Corporation (HIGC). To support their claim of intra-corporate
controversy, petitioners stated that the Articles of Incorporation of SCHA,
which was duly approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission

3
(SEC) on 4 October 1973, provides that the association shall be a non- On September 24, 1998, petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals
stock corporation with all homeowners of Sta. Clara constituting its via a Petition for Certiorari.7
membership. Also, its by-laws contains a provision that all real estate
owners in Sta. Clara Subdivision automatically become members of the Ruling of the Court of Appeals
association. The private respondents, having become lot owners of Sta.
Clara Subdivision in 1974 after the approval by the SEC of SCHAs The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition and ruled that the RTC had
articles of incorporation and by-laws, became members automatically in jurisdiction over the dispute. It debunked petitioners contention that an intra-
1974 of SCHA argued the petitioners. Moreover, the private respondents corporate controversy existed between the SCHA and respondents. The CA held
allegedly enjoyed the privileges and benefits of membership in and that the Complaint had stated a cause of action. It likewise opined that
abided by the rules of the association, and even attended the general jurisdiction and cause of action were determined by the allegations in the
special meeting of the association members on 24 March 1998. Their complaint and not by the defenses and theories set up in the answer or the
non-payment of the association yearly dues [did] not make them non- motion to dismiss.
members of SCHA continued the petitioners. And even granting that the
private respondents [were] not members of the association, the
Hence, this Petition.8
petitioners opined that the HIGC still ha[d] jurisdiction over the case
pursuant to Section 1 (a), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the HIGC.
Issues
"On 6 July 1998, the lower court, after having received private
respondents opposition to petitioners motion to dismiss and other In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues for the Courts
subsequent pleadings filed by the parties, resolved to deny petitioners consideration:
motion to dismiss, finding that there existed no intra-corporate
controversy since the private respondents alleged that they ha[d] never I
joined the association; and, thus, the HIGC had no jurisdiction to hear the
case. On 18 July 1998, petitioners submitted a Motion for "Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals erred in upholding the
Reconsideration, adding lack of cause of action as ground for the jurisdiction of the court a quo, to declare as null and void the resolution
dismissal of the case. This additional ground was anchored on the of the Board of SCHA, decreeing that only members [in] good standing of
principle of damnum absque injuria as allegedly there [was] no allegation the said association, were to be issued stickers for use in their vehicles.
in the complaint that the private respondents were actually prevented
from entering the subdivision and from having access to their residential II
abode. On 17 August 1998, the court a quo, taking into consideration the
comment filed by the private respondents[,] on petitioners motion for "Whether or not private respondents are members of SCHA.
reconsideration and the pleadings thereafter submitted by the parties,
denied the said motion without however ruling on the additional ground of
III
lack of cause of action x x x.
"Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the
xxx xxx xxx dismissal of the Complaint in Civil Case No. 98-10217 for lack of cause of
action."9
"On 18 August 1998, petitioners filed a motion to resolve defendants
motion to dismiss on ground of lack of cause of action. On 8 September
In sum, the issues boil down to two: (1) Did the RTC have jurisdiction over the
1998, after the petitioners and the private respondents submitted their
Complaint? and (2) Did the Complaint state a cause of action?
pleadings in support of or in opposition thereto, as the case may be, the
trial court issued an order denying the motion, x x x."6
This Courts Rulings

4
The Petition has no merit. In December 1994, the HIGC adopted the Revised Rules of Procedure in the
Hearing of Homeowners Disputes, pertinent portions of which are reproduced
First Issue: below:
Jurisdiction
"RULE II
Petitioners contend that the CA erred in upholding the trial courts jurisdiction to
declare as null and void the SCHA Resolution decreeing that only members in Disputes Triable by HIGC/Nature of Proceedings
good standing would be issued vehicle stickers.
Section 1. Types of Disputes. - The HIGC or any person, officer, body,
The RTC did not void the SCHA Resolution; it merely resolved the Motion to board or committee duly designated or created by it shall have
Dismiss filed by petitioners by holding that it was the RTC, not the Home jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the following:
Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC), that had jurisdiction over the
dispute. a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the Board of
Directors or officers of the association amounting to fraud and
HIGCs Jurisdiction misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the
public and/or of the members of the association or the association
HIGC10 was created pursuant to Republic Act 580.11 Originally, administrative registered with HIGC
supervision over homeowners associations was vested by law in the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).12 b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate relations between
and among members of the association, between any or all of
Pursuant to Executive Order (EO) No. 535, however,13 the HIGC assumed the them and the association of which they are members; and
regulatory and adjudicative functions of the SEC over homeowners associations. between such association and the state/general public or other
Explicitly vesting such powers in the HIGC is paragraph 2 of EO 535, which we entity in so far as it concerns its right to exist as a corporate
quote hereunder: entity.

"2. In addition to the powers and functions vested under the Home xxx xxx x x x."
Financing Act, the Corporation, shall have among others, the following
additional powers: The aforesaid powers and responsibilities, which had been vested in the HIGC
with respect to homeowners associations, were later transferred to the Housing
(a) x x x; and exercise all the powers, authorities and and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to Republic Act 8763.15
responsibilities that are vested in the Securities and Exchange
Commission with respect to home owners associations, the Are Private Respondents SCHA Members?
provision of Act 1459, as amended by P.D. 902-A, to the contrary
nothwithstanding; In order to determine if the HIGC has jurisdiction over the dispute, it is necessary
to resolve preliminarily -- on the basis of the allegations in the Complaint --
(b) To regulate and supervise the activities and operations of all whether private respondents are members of the SCHA.
houseowners associations registered in accordance therewith."
Petitioners contend that because the Complaint arose from intra-corporate
Moreover, by virtue of the aforequoted provision, the HIGC also assumed the relations between the SCHA and its members, the HIGC therefore has no
SECs original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving jurisdiction over the dispute. To support their contention that private respondents
controversies arising from intra-corporate or partnership relations.14 are members of the association, petitioners cite the SCHAs Articles of
Incorporation16 and By-laws17 which provide that all landowners of the Sta. Clara
Subdivision are automatically members of the SCHA.
5
We are not persuaded. The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of an annotation to the effect that the lot owner becomes an automatic
association18 includes the freedom not to associate.19 The right to choose with member of the respondent Bel-Air Association and must abide by such
whom one will associate oneself is the very foundation and essence of that rules and regulations laid down by the Association in the interest of the
partnership.20 It should be noted that the provision guarantees the right to form an sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community. It is
association. It does not include the right to compel others to form or join one.21 likewise not disputed that the provision on automatic membership was
expressly annotated on the petitioners Transfer Certificate of Title and on
More to the point, private respondents cannot be compelled to become members the title of his predecessor-in-interest.
of the SCHA by the simple expedient of including them in its Articles of
Incorporation and By-laws without their express or implied consent. True, it may "The question, therefore, boils down to whether or not the petitioner is
be to the mutual advantage of lot owners in a subdivision to band themselves bound by such annotation.
together to promote their common welfare. But that is possible only if the owners
voluntarily agree, directly or indirectly, to become members of the association. "Section 39 of Art. 496 (The Land Registration Act) states:
True also, memberships in homeowners associations may be acquired in
various ways -- often through deeds of sale, Torrens certificates or other forms of Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance
evidence of property ownership. In the present case, however, other than the of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of
said Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, there is no showing that private registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good
respondents have agreed to be SCHA members. faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrances except those
noted on said certificate x x x." (Italics supplied)
As correctly observed by the CA:
The above ruling, however, does not apply to the case at bar. When private
"x x x. The approval by the SEC of the said documents is not an respondents purchased their property in 1974 and obtained Transfer Certificates
operative act which bestows membership on the private respondents of Title Nos. T-126542 and T-127462 for Lots 11 and 12 of Block 37 along San
because the right to associate partakes of the nature of freedom of Jose Avenue in Sta. Clara Subdivision, there was no annotation showing their
contract which can be exercised by and between the homeowners automatic membership in the SCHA. Thus, no privity of contract arising from the
amongst themselves, the homeowners association and a homeowner, title certificate exists between petitioners and private respondents.
and the subdivision owner and a homeowner/lot buyer x x x."22
Further, the records are bereft of any evidence that would indicate that private
No Privity of Contract respondents intended to become members of the SCHA. Prior to the
implementation of the aforesaid Resolution, they and the other homeowners who
Clearly then, no privity of contract exists between petitioners and private were not members of the association were issued non-member gate pass
respondents. As a general rule, a contract is a meeting of minds between two stickers for their vehicles. This fact has not been disputed by petitioners. Thus,
persons.23 The Civil Code upholds the spirit over the form; thus, it deems an the SCHA recognized that there were subdivision landowners who were not
agreement to exist, provided the essential requisites are present. A contract is members thereof, notwithstanding the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation
upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause. Moreover, and By-laws.
it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into. From
the moment there is a meeting of minds between the parties, it is perfected.24 Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations in the Complaint

As already adverted to, there are cases in which a party who enters into a It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
contract of sale is also bound by a lien annotated on the certificate of title. We allegations in the complaint. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the
recognized this in Bel Air Village Association, Inc. v. Dionisio,25 in which we ruled: theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise,
jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the
"There is no dispute that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 81136 covering defendant.26
the subject parcel of land issued in the name of the petitioner contains

6
The Complaint does not allege that private respondents are members of the This contention is untenable. A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the
SCHA. In point of fact, they deny such membership. Thus, the HIGC has no ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted all
jurisdiction over the dispute. the factual averments in the complaint. The test of the sufficiency of the
allegations constituting the cause of action is whether, admitting the facts
Petitioners likewise contend that even if private respondents are not members of alleged, the court can render a valid judgment on the prayers.31 This test implies
the SCHA, an intra-corporate controversy under the third type of dispute provided that the issue must be passed upon on the basis of the bare allegations in the
in Section 1(b) of Rule II of the HIGC Rules exists. Petitioners posit that private complaint. The court does not inquire into the truth of such allegations and
respondents fall within the meaning of "general public." We are not convinced. declare them to be false. To do so would constitute a procedural error and a
denial of the plaintiffs right to due process.32
First, the third type of dispute refers only to cases wherein an associations right
to exist as a corporate entity is at issue. In the present case, the Complaint filed A complaint states a cause of action when it contains these three essential
by private respondents refers to the SCHAs acts allegedly amounting to an elements: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the
impairment of their free access to their place of residence inside the Sta. Clara defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said
Subdivision.27The existence of SCHA as a corporate entity is clearly not at issue legal right.33
in the instant case.
In the instant case, the records sufficiently establish a cause of action. First, the
Second, in United BF Homeowners Association v. BF Homes, Inc., we held 28 Complaint alleged that, under the Constitution, respondents had a right of free
that Section 1(b), Rule II of HIGCs "Revised Rules of Procedure in the Hearing access to and from their residential abode. Second, under the law, petitioners
of Homeowners Disputes" was void. The HIGC went beyond its lawful authority have the obligation to respect this right. Third, such right was impaired by
provided by law when it promulgated its revised rules of procedure. There was a petitioners when private respondents were refused access through the Sta. Clara
clear attempt to unduly expand the provisions of Presidential Decree 902-A. As Subdivision, unless they showed their drivers license for identification.
provided by the law, it is only the State -- not the "general public or other entity" --
that can question an associations franchise or corporate existence.29 Given these hypothetically admitted facts, the RTC, in the exercise of its original
and exclusive jurisdiction,34could have rendered judgment over the dispute.
To reiterate, the HIGC exercises limited jurisdiction over homeowners disputes.
The law confines its authority to controversies that arise from any of the following We stress that, in rendering this Decision, this Court is not prejudging the main
intra-corporate relations: (1) between and among members of the association; (2) issue of whether, in truth and in fact, private respondents are entitled to a
between any and/or all of them and the association of which they are members; favorable decision by the RTC. That will be made only after the proper
and (3) between the association and the state insofar as the controversy proceedings therein. Later on, if it is proven during the trial that they are indeed
concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity.30 members of the SCHA, then the case may be dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. We are merely holding that, on the basis of the allegations in the
It should be stressed that the Complaint here is for damages. It does not assert Complaint, (1) the RTC has jurisdiction over the controversy and (2) the
membership in the SCHA as its basis. Rather, it is based on an alleged violation Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action. Therefore, it is not subject to
of their alleged right of access through the subdivision and on the alleged attack by a motion to dismiss on these grounds.
embarrassment and humiliation suffered by the plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed
Second Issue: Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Sufficiency of Cause of Action
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners claim that the CA erred in not ordering the dismissal of the Complaint
for lack of cause of action. They argue that there was no allegation therein that
private respondents were actually prevented from entering the subdivision and
gaining access to their residential abode.