Eliseo Fajardo Jr., vs Freedom to Build Inc.

G. R. No. 134692 August 1, 2000

Facts: Freedom to Build Inc., an owner-developer and seller of low-cost housing sold to
petitioner-spouses a house and lot in the De La Costa Homes, in Barangka, Marikina, Metro
Manila. The Contract to sell executed between the parties, contained a Restrictive Covenant
providing certain prohibitions, to wit:
“Easements. For the good of the entire community, the homeowner must observe a two-meter
easement in front. No structure of any kind (store, garage, bodega, etc.) may be built on the
front easement.

“Upward expansion. A second storey is not prohibited. But the second storey expansion must
be placed above the back portion of the house and should not extend forward beyond the apex
of the original building.

“Front expansion: 2nd Storey: No unit may be extended in the front beyond the line as designed
and implemented by the developer in the 60 sq. m. unit. In other words, the 2nd floor expansion,
in front, is 6 meters back from the front property line and 4 meters back from the front wall of the
house, just as provided in the 60 sq. m. units.”

The above restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384
covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses.

The controversy arose when the petitioners despite repeated demand from the respondent,
extended the roof of their house to the property line and expanded the second floor of their
house to a point directly above the original front wall. Respondent filed before the RTC an action
to demolish the unauthorized structures.

The RTC rendered a judgment against the petitioner ordering them to immediately demolish and
remove the extension of their expanded housing unit that exceeds the limitations imposed by
the Restrictive Covenant, otherwise the Branch Sheriff of this Court will execute the this
decision at the expense of the defendants.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not the for the lack of a specific provision, prescribing the penalty of the
demolition in the “Restrictive Covenant” in the event of the breach thereof, the prayer of the
respondent to demolish the structure should fail.
Ruling:
The Court held that the argument of the petitioner-spouses has no merit; Article 1168 of the
New Civil Code states that: “When the obligation consists in not doing and the obligor does what
has been forbidden him, it shall be undone at his expense.”

This Court is not unaware of its ruling in Ayala Corporation vs. Ray Burton Development
Corporation, which has merely adjudged the payment of damages in lieu of demolition. In the
aforementioned case, however, the elaborate mathematical formula for the determination of
compensatory damages which takes into account the current construction cost index during the
immediately preceding 5 years based on the weighted average of wholesale price and wage
indices of the National Census and Statistics Office and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is
explicitly provided for in the Deed of Restrictions entered into by the parties. This unique and
peculiar circumstance, among other strong justifications therein mentioned, is not extant in the
case at bar.

In sum, the Court holds that since the extension constructed exceeds the floor area limits of the
Restrictive Covenant, petitioner spouses can be required to demolish the structure to the extent
that it exceeds the prescribed floor area limits.
Wherefore, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.