. MARIA LUISA PARK ASSOCIATION, INC.,Petitioner, vs.SAMANTHA MARIE T. ALMENDRAS and PIAANGELA T. ALMENDRAS,Respondents.[G.R. No. 171763, June 5, 2009,QUISUMBING, J.:]NATURE: Petition for review on certiorariFACTS:1.respondents Samantha Marie T. Almendras and Pia Angela T. Almendras purchased from MRODevelopment Corporation a residential lot in Cebu City2.Almendras then filed with Maria Luisa Park Association Inc an application to construct a residentialhouse which was approved3.Upon ocular inspection MLPAI found out that Almendras violated the prohibition against multi-dwelling4.MLPAI sent a letter to the respondents, demanding that they rectify the structurea.respondents, as represented by their father Ruben D. Almendras denied having violated MLPAI’sDeed of Restrictionb.MLPAI, in its reply, pointed out respondents’ specific violations of the subdivision rules:i.installation of a second water meter and tapping the subdivision’s main water pipelineii.construction of “two separate entrances that are mutually exclusive of each other.”5.Respondents fi led a complaint with the RTC of Cebu for Injunction, Declatory Relief, Annulment of  Provisions of Articles and By-Laws with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction.a.MLPAI moved for dismissal of  the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction andfailure to comply with the arbitration clause provided for in MLPAI’s by-laws.b.TC dismissed the complaint holding that it  was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board thathas original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.c . M R f i l ed b y   re spo nden ts was d en ie d . 6.CA declared the decision of RTC null and void, and ordering it to take cognizance of the case

ISSUE: Whether the HLURB and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC), now HLURB, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Petition Granted.1.Pursuant to EO No 535, the HIGC assumed the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the SEC over  homeowners’ associations2 .   I n   add i t i on   t o   t he pow ers   and f un c t i on s   ve s t ed und e r   t he Hom e   F inan c ing   Ac t ,   t heCorporation, shall have among others, the following additional powers:(a) . . . and exercise all the powers, authorities and responsibilities that are vested on theSecurities and Exchange Commission with respect to homeowners associations, the provision of  Act 1459, as amended by P.D. 902-A, to the contrary notwithstanding;( b )   T o   r e g u l a t e   a n d   s u p e r v i s e   t h e   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   o p e r a t i o n s  o f   a l l   h o u s e o w n e r s associations registered in accordance therewith;2.HIGC

also assumed the SEC’s original and exclusive jurisdiction under Section 5 of Presidential DecreeNo. 902-A to hear and decide cases involving:b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and amongstockholders,  members, or associates;b etw ee n a ny an d / o r a l l o f t he m an d t h e co rp o ra t io n , p a r t n e r s h i p   o r   a s s o c i a t i o n   o f   w h i c h   t h e y   a r e   st o c k h o l d e r s ,   m e m b e r s   o r   a s s o c i a t e s,respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as itconcerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;3 . PR ES ENT   CAS E: r esp onde n t s   a r e mem ber s   o f MLP AI   as t he y hav e ev en adm i t t ed   i t . T h e re fo re , as correctly ruled by the trial court, the case involves a controversy between the homeowners’ associationand some of its members. Thus, the exclusive and original jurisdiction lies with the HLURB.a.Sta. Clara Homeowners’ Association v. Gaston:. . . t h eHIGC exercises limited jurisdiction over homeowners' disputes.The lawconfines its authority to controversies that arise from any of the following intra-corporaterelations: (1) between and among members of the association; (2)between any and/or all of them and the association of which they are members; and (3) between the association and the stateinsofar as the controversy concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity.4.The extent to which the HLURB has been vested with quasi-judicial authority must also be determinedly referring to Section 3 of P.D. No. 957:

 SEC. 3.National Housing Authority . – The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdictiontoregulate the real estate trade and businessin accordance with the provisions of this Decree.5.In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine therights of private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function,exercisable only by the regular courts.a . T he   re spo nden ts ne i t he r   as ked f o r   t he i n t e r p r e t a t i on   o f t he   que s t i on ed   by - l aw s   no r d i d   t hey allege that the same is doubtful or ambiguous and require judicial construction. What they seekto accomplish is to have a particular provision of the MLPAI’s by-laws nullified and thereafter absolve them from any violations of the same.b.The legality of the by-laws in its entirety was never an issue in the instant controversy but merelythe provision prohibiting multi-dwelling which respondents assert they did not violate. There is no justiciable controversy here that would warrant declaratory relief, or even an annulment of contracts.6.under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversywhere the issues for resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring thespecial knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative

tribunal to determine technical andintricate matters of facta.the HLURB has the expertise to resolve the basic technical issue of whether the house built bythe respondents violated the Deed of Restriction, specifically the prohibition against multi-dwelling.7.the parties failed to abide by the arbitration agreement in the MLPAI by-laws.a . Ar t i c l e X I I o f   th e M L PAI b y - l a ws e n te re d i n t o b y   th e p ar t i es p ro v i d es th a t an y d i sp u te o r   claim against the Association or any of its officers and governors shall first be settledamicably.i . I f a m i c a b l e   s e t t l e m e n t   f a i l s ,   s u c h   d i s p u t e   s h a l l   b e   b r o u g h t   b y   th e   m e m b e r   t o   a n a r b i t r a t i on   pan e l   f o r f i na l   se t t l e men t .   T he   a r b i t r a l   awa r d   sh a l l   be   va l i d   and   b ind ing between the parties unless repudiated on grounds that the same was procured throughfraud or violence, or that there are patent or gross errors in the tribunal’s findings of factsupon which the decision was based.ii.Respondents, being members of MLPAI, are bound by its by-laws, and are expected toabide by it in good faithiii.The parties in the case made no earnest effort to resolve their differences in accordancewith the arbitration clause provided for in their by-laws.1 . M e r e   e x c h a n g e   o f   c o r r e s p o n d e n c e   w i l l   n o t   s u f f i c e  m u c h   l e s s   s a t i s f y   t h e requirement of arbitration.8.Arbitration being the mode of settlement between the parties expressly provided for in their by-laws, the same should be respected. a. Unless an arbitration agreement is such as absolutely to close the doors of the courts against the parties, the courts should look with favor upon such amicable arrangementsb.Arbitration is one of the alternative methods of dispute resolution that is now rightfully vaunted as “the wave of the future” in international relations, and is recognized worldwide.c.To brush aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration in case of disagreement between the parties would therefore be a step backward.