Skip to main content

Bel Air Village Association vs Virgilio Dionisio (Case Digest)


Bel Air Village Association, Inc. vs Virgilio Dionisio
G.R. L-383454 June 30, 1989
Facts:
The Transfer Certificate of Title covering the subject parcel of land issued in the name of  Virgilio Dionisio, the petitioner  contains an annotation to the effect that the lot owner becomes an automatic member of Bel-Air Village Association,  the respondent,  and must abide by such rules and regulations laid down by the Association in the interest of the sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community.   
The  petitioner questioned the collection of the dues on the following grounds:  the questioned assessment is a property tax outside the corporate power of the association;  the association  has no power to compel the petitioner to pay the assessment for lack of privity of contract; the questioned assessment should not be enforced for being unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive, confiscatory and discriminatory; the respondent association is exercising governmental powers which should not be sanctioned.
Issue:
Whether or not  the association can lawfully collect dues
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.  It held that the purchasers of a registered land are bound by the annotations found at the back of the certificate of title covering the subject parcel of land. The petitioner’s contention that he has no privity with the respondent association is not persuasive.  When  the petitioner voluntarily bought the subject parcel of land it was understood that he took the same free of all ecumbrances except annotations at the back of the certificate of title, among them, that he automatically becomes a member of the respondent association. One of the obligations of a member is to pay certain amounts for the operation and activities of the association.  
The mode of payment as well as the purposes for which the dues are intended clearly indicates that the dues are not in the concept of a property tax as claimed by the petitioner.  They are shares in the common expenses for necessary services.  A property tax is assessed according to the value of the property but the basis of the sharing in this case is the area of the lot.  The dues are fees which a member of the respondent association is required in hiring security guards, cleaning and maintaining streets, street lights and other community projects for the benefit of all residents within the Bel-Air Village.  These expenses are necessary, valid and reasonable for the particular community involved. 
The limitations upon the ownership of the petitioner do not contravene provisions of laws,  morals, good customs, public order or public policy.  The constitutional proscription than no person can be compelled to be a member of an association against his will applies only to governmental  acts and not to private transactions like the one in question. 
The petitioner cannot legally maintain that he is compelled to be a member of the association against his will because the limitation is imposed upon his ownership of property.  If he does not desire to comply with the annotation or lien in question, he can at any time exercise his inviolable freedom of disposing of the property and free himself from the burden of becoming a member of the association.



Comments