Scribd
Upload
481 views

Presley vs. Bel Air Village Asso. Ruling

The petitioner operates a pandesal store on a leased property along Jupiter Street. The property's title restricted its use to residential purposes. However, the Supreme Court previously ruled that Jupiter Street was reclassified as a commercial zone by ordinance. While associations can enforce deed restrictions, these can be overridden to allow valid exercises of police power like land use reclassification. The petition was granted, reversing the lower courts and dismissing the complaint against the pandesal store.

Uploaded by

Trisha Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
481 views

Presley vs. Bel Air Village Asso. Ruling

The petitioner operates a pandesal store on a leased property along Jupiter Street. The property's title restricted its use to residential purposes. However, the Supreme Court previously ruled that Jupiter Street was reclassified as a commercial zone by ordinance. While associations can enforce deed restrictions, these can be overridden to allow valid exercises of police power like land use reclassification. The petition was granted, reversing the lower courts and dismissing the complaint against the pandesal store.

Uploaded by

Trisha Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PRESLEY vs. BEL AIR VILLAGE ASSO.

Ruling:
201 SCRA 13 | August 21, 1991 | Gutierrez Jr. | Commercial Zone The petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the respondent
court dated November 28, 1988 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
PETITIONER: ENEDINA PRESLEY The complaint of the private respondent is DISMISSED.
RESPONDENTS: BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., and
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
Ratio:
SUMMARY: Presley leases a property owned by Spounses In the case of Sangalang, the Court upheld residential owners’
Almendrases which is a residential property. The said property is used starting to convert their homes into commercial establishments
to as a venue to sell pandesal. The Village Association of Bel-Air despite their Deed of Restriction stating that their lots should be used
wanted to close the pandesal store because property should be used for
for residential purposes only pursuant Ordinance No. 81-01 which
residential purposes only as annotated in their title. RTC and CA ruled
in favor of the village association. During appeal in the SC, Salang reclassified Jupiter street into a high density commercial zone. This
case was decided upon and stated that Jupiter Street is now reclassified was a valid police power measure. While BAVA had the right to
as high density commercial zone. enforce the contractual obligations in the Deed of Restrictions, these
contractual stipulations on the use of the land can be impaired if
DOCTRINE: Ordinance No. 81-01, which reclassified Jupiter street
into a high density commercial zone, is a valid police power measure. necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police power.

Facts:
• Petitioner Presley leases property owned by the Spouses
Almendrases in Jupiter Street and operates a pandesal store in that
address. Village Association (BAVA) notified them to shut it down
pursuant to Bel-Air the Deed Restrictions annotated in their title
(TCT No. 73616) that the property would be used for residential
purposes only. Both the RTC and the CA ruled in favor of BAVA.
• However, during the appeal in the SC, the Court ruled in another
case (Sangalang case) that Jupiter Street was reclassified by the
Metro Manila Commission into a high density commercial zone,
from its former classification as a residential zone, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 81-01. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
W/N the CA erred in ruling in favor of BAVA given the current
ruling in the Sangalang case? — YES

You might also like