STA CLARA HOA VS GASTON JAN. 23, 2002 (CASE DIGEST)

Facts:

Spouses Victor Ma. Gaston and Lydia Gaston, the private respondents, filed a complaint for damages with preliminary  injunction/preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court against petitioners Sta Clara Homeowners Association (SCHA). 

The complaint alleged that the private respondents purchased their lots in Sta. Clara Subdivision and at the time of the purchase, there was no mention or requirement of membership in any homeowners’ association.    From that time on, they have remained non-members of the SCHA.   They also stated  that an arrangement was made wherein homeowners who  were non-members of the association were issued non-member gate pass stickers for their vehicles for identification by the security guards manning the subdivision’s entrances and exits.  This arrangement remained undisturbed until sometime  in the middle of March 1998, when SCHA disseminated a board resolution which decreed that only its members in good standing were to be issued stickers for use in their vehicles. 

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case as it involved an intra-corporate dispute between SCHA and its members.  The proper forum must be the Home Insurance and Guarantee Corporation (HIGC).   They  stated that that the Articles of Incorporation of SCHA, which was duly approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission , provides that the association shall be a non-tock corporation with all the homeowners of Sta. Clara constituting its membership.  Its by-laws also contains a provision that all real estate owners automatically become members of the association.    Moreover, the private respondents allegedly enjoyed the privileges of membership and abided by the rules of the association, and even attended the general special meeting of the association members. 

Issue:

 Whether or not the private respondents are members of SCHA

Ruling:

        

      The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate.  The right to choose with whom one will associate oneself is the very foundation and essence of the partnership.  It should be noted that the provision guarantees the right to form an association.  It does not compel others to form or join one.

           Private respondents cannot be compelled to become members of SCHA by the simple expedient of including them in its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws without their express or implied consent.  True, it may be to the mutual advantage of lot owners in a subdivision  to band themselves together to promote their common welfare.  But that is possible only if the owners voluntarily agree, directly or indirectly, to become members of the association.  True also, membership in homeowners’ association may be acquired in various ways – often through deeds of sale, Torrens  certificates or other forms of evidence of property ownership.   However, when private respondents purchased their property and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title, there was no annotation showing automatic membership in the SCHA.   Thus, no privity of contract arising from the title certificate exists between petitioners and private respondents.