Ayala Land stops use of AAV gates

Ayala Land Inc. (ALI), developer of Ayala Alabang Village, was able to secure a writ of preliminary injunction against Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA) to prevent the latter from using the two gates in San Jose and Champaca Streets recently constructed by AAVA as ingress and egress to and from the subdivision.

As can be seen from the Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 204 decision dated Nov. 17, sometime last October, the homeowners’ association demolished the perimeter walls at the dead end of the two streets and constructed the two gates which allowed motorists to enter and exit the village without the consent or permit of ALI.

ALI claims that being the owner of these road lots, it has the authority to prevent anybody from using them differently from what has been depicted in the entire survey plan of Ayala Alabang Village or AAV as a subdivision. It said allowing AAVA to alter the survey plan, which has been the basis of the lot owners in purchasing their lots inside AAV, would be to ruin the reputation of ALI as a developer of first-class subdivisions such as AAV, adding the opening of additional gates would expose the village to security threats in addition to the horrendous traffic it would entail if outside motorists would be allowed entry and exit through these gates.

The homeowners’ association, on the other hand, insists the RTC has no jurisdiction over this case as questions in connection with subdivisions are lodged in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and that ALI has ceased to be the owner of the road lots in question for its failure to donate these road lots and open spaces after their completion in the ’90s to the local government unit of Muntinlupa City.

But the court brushed aside AAVA’s contention, saying that since the complainant in this case is ALI, the developer of AAV and not the subdivision buyers, the regular courts have jurisdiction and not the HLURB.

It emphasized the HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed by subdivision or condominium owners or developers against subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers or owners.

As to AAVA’s claim that ALI is no longer the owner of the road lots, the court said this argument is unmeritorious, as it pointed to the contracts of lease and various communication exchanges between ALI and AAVA which clearly recognize that ALI is still the owner of these road lots as well as the open spaces and parks of the AAV. It added ALI’s failure to donate the road lots to the LGU within a reasonable period of time does not automatically divest ALI of ownership.

The Muntinlupa RTC said that upon filing of a P2 million bond by ALI which is conditioned upon the payment of damages which AAVA may incur as a result of the injunction, a writ of preliminary injunction is allowed to be issued to prevent AAVA and all persons acting in its behalf from opening the two gates, especially after ALI was able to show it was entitled to the injunctive relief as the demolition of the perimeter fences and the construction of the two gates without the permission of ALI would not only destroy the latter’s reputation as a developer but would also continuously threaten the security of AAV residents.

The RTC’s ruling is just the latest development in this saga. Aside from the fact ALI allegedly wants AAVA to restore the perimeter fence destroyed by the association, it will be recalled that last Sept. 18, the HLURB issued a cease and desist order (CDO) to stop AAVA and its board members from holding a referendum among AAV residents on whether or not they agree to the opening of additional village gates at San Jose, Guava, and Champaca Streets.

The complainants in this particular HLURB case, who are also AAV residents, said the association and even the residents of the village do not have the right or power to change the original subdivision plan of the village by installing additional gates at San Jose and Champaca.

They said in their complaint the referendum is premature and useless because first, ALI which owns the properties for the gates objects and has imposed conditions that have not yet been met; second, the association members or residents have no power to impair the contract of each lot owner with ALI by altering the original subdivision plan; and third, Barangay Ayala Alabang cannot buy the Filinvest lot needed for the passage for the San Jose gate because that would illegally expand its geographic territory as defined by statute.

Not mentioned here is their claim that the barangay cannot utilize public funds to benefit a private entity. At present, the land outside the San Jose gate is a private lot owned by Filinvest and the barangay wants to acquire part of the Filinvest lot for the construction of a road leading to and from this new gate and reportedly to and from a soon-to-be-constructed Filinvest mixed used development.

The complainants, likewise, have alleged the AAVA’s campaign for a yes-vote did not mention Filinvest’s participation in the issuance of stickers for passage through the gates, the traffic scheme involving the other streets affected by traffic passing through the gates, among other facts that would allow the residents to make an informed vote on the proposal.

But wait, there is more. A complaint has been filed against AAVA board members last Oct. 6 seeking to declare void ab initio their election to the board due to absence of a quorum and to nullify the various actions they have taken, in particular their holding of a referendum, their construction of additional gates, among others. Complainants also sought a cease and desist order to prevent respondents from continuing to act as directors and president, even as complainants sought the appointment of a management committee.