1

Eliseo Fajardo Jr., vs Freedom to Build Inc.

G. R. No. 134692 August 1, 2000

Facts:

Petitioner-spouses Eliseo Fajardo, Jr. And Marissa Fajardo bought a house and lot
from Freedom to Build Inc.,--owner-developer and seller of low cost housing in De
La Costa Homes, in Barangka, Marikina, Metro Manila. There was a Contract to Sell
between parties that 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 abovementioned restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title

No. N-115384 covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses.

Petitioners extended the roof of their house to the property line and expanded the
second floor directly above the original front wall; because of this the controversy
arose. 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. The spouses contest the
judgement of the courts as the adjacent owners have no objection to the construction.
Moreover, the couple’s two children might get married soon and then share, with their
families, living quarters with petitioners. The prohibition contained in the “Restrictive
Covenant” which was originally residing on respondent is now lodges in the
 2

homeowners’ association not on the contract between Freedom to Build Incorporated

ad De la Costa Low Income Project Homeowners’ Association. 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:

A. The Court

a. 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.”

b. 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

(1) The Restrictive Covenant are valid

(2) Petitioners must be held to be bound

(3) 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.