Can HLURB Evict Non-Members from Community Mortgage Program Land?
G.R. No. 187751, November 22, 2010
Imagine a group of families, struggling to secure affordable housing, banding together to acquire land under a government program. But what happens when some residents refuse to join the association and reap the benefits without contributing? This case clarifies the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board’s (HLURB) power to resolve disputes and ensure the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) benefits reach intended recipients.
Understanding the Community Mortgage Program (CMP)
The Community Mortgage Program (CMP) is a government initiative designed to help low-income communities acquire land for housing. Republic Act No. 7279, the “Urban Development and Housing Act,” paved the way for programs like CMP. Section 33 emphasizes community organization for managing subdivisions and securing housing loans.
The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) provides mortgage financing to legally organized associations of underprivileged and homeless citizens, enabling them to purchase and develop land under community ownership.
Under the CMP framework, the landowner enters into a contract to sell with the community association. The association, in turn, agrees with the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) to collect and remit monthly amortizations from its members. The association is responsible for tracking payments and finding substitutes for defaulting members.
Here’s a key provision: “beneficiaries of the Program shall be responsible for their organization into associations to manage their subdivisions or places of residence, to secure housing loans under existing Community Mortgage Program and such other projects beneficial to them.” This highlights the crucial role of homeowners associations in the CMP.
Case Background: Eugenio vs. Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association
The Sta. Monica Riverside Homeowners Association (SMRHOA) aimed to acquire land under the CMP. They invited occupants, including Edna Eugenio and others (petitioners), to join, but they refused and formed their own unaccredited organization.
When Hi-Marketing Corporation agreed to sell the land to SMRHOA, the association again invited petitioners to join. Upon their refusal, SMRHOA demanded they vacate the premises, leading to an ejectment complaint before the HLURB.
The petitioners argued against HLURB’s jurisdiction, claiming the case wasn’t an intra-corporate controversy and that eviction cases belong to first-level courts. They also questioned SMRHOA’s legitimacy and activities.
The case journeyed through several levels:
- HLURB Arbiter: Ruled for SMRHOA, ordering petitioners’ exclusion from CMP benefits and eviction.
- HLURB Board of Commissioners: Affirmed the Arbiter’s decision.
- Office of the President: Upheld the Board’s decision.
- Court of Appeals: Denied the petition for review.
The Supreme Court ultimately heard the case, focusing on the HLURB’s jurisdiction.
The HLURB Arbiter stated: “Consequently, complainant’s [respondent] present causes of action against respondents are incidental or collateral to the enforcement of interests of the members of the complainant which matters clearly fall under the primary jurisdiction of HLURB.”
Supreme Court Decision: HLURB’s Authority Upheld
The Supreme Court affirmed the HLURB’s jurisdiction. It emphasized that when an administrative agency receives quasi-judicial functions, all related controversies fall under its purview.
Republic Act No. 8763 transferred authority over homeowners associations to the HLURB. The Court noted that petitioners themselves acknowledged HLURB’s jurisdiction by challenging SMRHOA’s legitimacy.
The Court stated: “The powers authorities and responsibilities vested in the Corporation (formerly Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation) with respect to homeowners association under Republic Act No. 580, as amended by executive Order No. 535 is hereby transferred to the Housing and Land use Regulatory Board (HLURB).”
The Court reasoned that if petitioners refused to recognize SMRHOA, the association couldn’t fulfill its CMP obligations, hindering individual titling and the program’s goals.
While ejectment cases usually fall under first-level courts, the right to possession here was intertwined with CMP rights, making it HLURB’s expertise.
Practical Implications and Key Lessons
This ruling reinforces the HLURB’s authority over disputes related to homeowners associations and the CMP. It clarifies that non-members cannot claim CMP benefits and can be evicted to facilitate the program’s objectives.
This case highlights the importance of joining and actively participating in homeowners associations within CMP projects.
Key Lessons:
- HLURB has jurisdiction over disputes involving homeowners associations and CMP benefits.
- Non-members of homeowners associations cannot claim CMP benefits.
- Eviction is a possible consequence of refusing to join a homeowners association in a CMP project.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the Community Mortgage Program (CMP)?
A: The CMP is a government program that assists low-income communities in acquiring land for housing through community ownership.
Q: Who is eligible for CMP benefits?
A: Only members of duly organized and HLURB-accredited homeowners associations are eligible for CMP benefits.
Q: Can non-members of a homeowners association be evicted from CMP land?
A: Yes, the HLURB has the authority to order the eviction of non-members to facilitate the CMP’s objectives.
Q: What is the role of the HLURB in CMP projects?
A: The HLURB regulates and supervises homeowners associations, resolves disputes, and ensures compliance with CMP rules and regulations.
Q: What should I do if I am facing eviction from a CMP property?
A: Seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and options. Consider joining the homeowners association if eligible.
ASG Law specializes in real estate law and homeowners association disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.