The Supreme Court Third Division ruled that homeowners’ associations cannot restrict delinquent members from using subdivision roads and common areas, declaring that RA 9904 only allows the suspension of basic community services.
The ruling stems from a dispute where La Costa Brava Homeowners’ Association Inc. penalized Bacolod-Talisay homeowners Linley and Juvy Retirado by barring guests, ride-hailing vehicles, and essential deliveries from entering the subdivision roads.
The High Court affirmed the permanent disqualification of nine association officers who served from 2017 to 2021, upholding previous decisions by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission and the Court of Appeals.
THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that homeowners’ associations cannot restrict delinquent members from using subdivision roads and other common areas because of unpaid association dues.
The decision affects homeowners and associations across the country by clarifying what penalties may be imposed on members who fall behind on dues. While associations may suspend certain services allowed by law, they cannot interfere with a homeowner’s right to use roads and other common areas.
According to the SC Third Division, an association has the “right to sanction its members’ delinquency due to nonpayment of dues.” However, it said the practice of such right must not violate Republic Act (RA) 9904, or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations, which was enacted in 2010.
The law sets out the rights and responsibilities of homeowners, homeowners’ associations (HOAs), subdivision developers and government regulators.
What happened
The case involved spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado, homeowners in La Costa Brava Subdivision, which sits on the border of Bacolod City and Talisay City in Negros Occidental. According to court records, they failed to pay association dues from 2016 to 2021 and were declared delinquent members by La Costa Brava Homeowners’ Association Inc. (LCBHAI).
Several sanctions were imposed by the association against the couple.
Some affected services were provided by LCBHAI. Grass-cutting and maintenance work within five meters of the couple’s property were restricted unless requested by neighboring lot owners and garbage collection was reduced to once every two weeks.
Other penalties affected access to the subdivision. The association prohibited deliveries of food, packages, construction materials, appliances, gas and similar items to the homes of delinquent members.
Guests were not allowed to enter the subdivision and empty taxis, tricycles and ride-hailing vehicles were barred from entering to pick up delinquent residents.
Delivery trucks bringing supplies and construction materials were also required to pay fees.
The spouses challenged the sanctions before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), which found that the restrictions unlawfully limited the use of subdivision roads. They also disqualified the association’s officers.
LCBHAI’s officers were Reuben Mikhail Sabig, Christopher Siamundo, Ella Salcedo, Katherine Jallorina, Antonio Suganob, Cherrie Mae I, Davelyn Nuqui, Marilyn Gamboa and Robert Pascua. They served from 2017 to 2021.
Officers of LCBHAI challenged HSAC’s decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) 18th Division in Cebu City.
The CA, for its part, dismissed the association officers’ appeal after finding that they failed to properly serve a copy of their petition on the homeowners’ lawyers. The SC agreed, saying service on the parties themselves was defective and that the officers also failed to submit the required proof of service by registered mail.
Why the ruling matters
The High Court said RA 9904 gives members two separate rights under Section 7(a).
The first is the right to avail of and enjoy basic community services and facilities. The second is the right to use common areas maintained or administered by the association, including subdivision roads.
The distinction became crucial in the case because the law treats those rights differently when a homeowner becomes delinquent.
What SC says
In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC Third Division states that homeowners’ associations have the authority to impose sanctions on delinquent members, but that authority has limits.
The High Court examined Section 22(b) of RA 9904, which allows associations to suspend certain community services for members who fail to pay dues. The provision, however, does not authorize associations to restrict the use of common areas.
According to the High Court, that omission was intentional.
“While a homeowners’ association may deprive the delinquent association members of their right to avail themselves of or enjoy basic community services and facilities, it may not deprive the members of their right to use common areas, such as the roads,” the decision said.
The SC added that a homeowner’s “full right” to use common areas includes using roads for transportation and for the delivery of basic goods.
The restrictions on deliveries, transportation services and guests violated RA 9904, it ruled.
Which sanctions allowed
The SC made clear that not every sanction imposed by the association was unlawful.
Restrictions on grass-cutting, maintenance services and garbage collection relate to basic community services and facilities. Those may be imposed on delinquent members under the law.
The problem, the High Court said, was that the association went beyond suspending services and interfered with the homeowners’ right to use subdivision roads.
The SC also affirmed the rulings of the HSAC and the CA.
The High Court also upheld HSAC’s decision for the permanent disqualification of the association’s officers from holding office in LCBHAI. It found the violations serious because they impaired access to roads for transportation and even the delivery of basic necessities. / KAL