BELAIR v.

DIONISIO

174 SCRA 589

ACOT, KARLA JEAN G.

FACTS:

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the municipal court of Makati,
Rizal, on January 22, 1972, seeking payment of P 2,100 plus a 12% annual penalty and
P 751.30 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The amount of P 2,100 is the
amount of association dues assessed on the defendant's lot as a member of the
plaintiff's association. On February 16, 1972, the defendant filed an answer in which he
refuted all of the allegations in the complaint and asserted the following special
defenses: 1) There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant; 2) the
collection of alleged dues from its members is in reality an unlawful exercise of the
power of taxation that is beyond the plaintiff's corporate power; 3) the amount sought to
be collected is unreasonable and oppressive; and 4) the assessment of the dues upon
the defendant insofar as he has not voluntarily affiliated with plaintiff is illegal, immoral,
and contrary to the plaintiff's corporate power. As a result, the defendant files a
counterclaim for P 2,000 for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the membership of defendant to an association, against his will is

unconstitutional as it violates freedom of association.

RULING:

No, such contention is untenable.

The constitutional proscription that no person can be compelled to be a member
of an association against his will applies only to government acts and not to private
transactions like the one in question. The transaction between the defendants and the
original seller (defendant's immediate predecessor) of the land covered by TCT No.
81136 is a sale and the conditions have been validly imposed by the said vendor/the
same not being contrary to law, morals and good customs and public policy.
The remarks on the back of the certificate of title covering the relevant piece of
land bind purchasers of registered land. When the petitioner willingly purchased the
subject parcel of land, it was understood that he did so free of all encumbrances, with
the exception of annotations on the back of the certificate of title, one of which said that
he became an automatic member of the respondent association. One of a member's
responsibilities is to contribute to the operation and activities of the association. The
manner in which the dues are paid, as well as the reasons for which they are intended,
clearly show that they are not property taxes, as the petitioner claims. They are shares in
the common expenses for necessary services such as hiring security guards, cleaning
and maintaining streets, street lights and other and other community projects for the
benefit of all residents within the Bel-Air Village.
Therefore, it is not violative of his constitutional right to freedom of association as
it is not imposed upon him personally but upon his ownership of the property. The
limitation and restriction is a limitation that follows the land whoever is its owner. It does
not inhere in the person of the defendant.