Leviste Management System, Inc. vs. Legaspi Towers 200,Inc.
FACTS: Legaspi Towers, is a seven-floor condominium in Makati with a unit on the roof deck and two levels above said unit
called Concession 2 and Concession 3. The use and occupancy of the condominium building is governed by the Master Deed
with Declaration of Restrictions of Legaspi Towers (hereafter "Master Deed") annotated on the transfer certificate of title
of the developer, Legaspi Towers Development Corporation. LEMANS purchased Concession 3 in 1989 and later constructed
Concession 4 on its roof deck, leading to a dispute.
The RTC in an Order, applied Article 448 of the Civil Code and the ruling in the Depra vs. Dumlao, to be proper. It was found
that LEMANS is not the owner of the air space above its unit.
Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. was ordered to decide within 60 days whether to take ownership of the additional structure on
plaintiff LEMANS's penthouse. If Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. opts not to take ownership, they must negotiate lease terms with
LEMANS. If no agreement is reached, the court will determine the terms.
At the CA, it was held that although Concession 4 is acknowledged as a nuisance, LEMANS is declared a builder in good fa ith.
Legaspi Towers did not challenge this declaration. Since Concession 4 was constructed in good faith, it cannot be
demolished. The CA also upheld the validity of the building permit, stating that if the application and plans comply with
regulatory requirements, the permit issuance is considered a ministerial duty of the building official.
LEMANS and Legaspi Towers filed separate Petitions for Review.
ISSUE: (1) [Procedure] Whether Legaspi Towers is bound by the trial court's previous declaration that LEMANS is a builder in
good faith, limiting Legaspi Towers' options to those provided in Article 448. [NO]
A party who wishes to assail an interlocutory order may (a) immediately file a petition for certiorari if appropriate and
compliant with the stringent requirements of Rule 65 or (b) await judgment and question the interlocutory order in the
appeal of the main decision.
In this case, LEMANS opted for a certiorari petition, while Legaspi Towers chose to appeal the main decision. The Court is
not bound by the interlocutory orders and decisions of the lower courts, and it can review them in these consolidated
appeals under Rule 45.
Certiorari is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction, and errors of judgment can be addressed through a petition for
review under Rule 45. Therefore, there is no procedural impediment for the Court to assess the previous interlocutory
orders in the current appeals, especially considering the novelty of the main issue involved.
(2) WON the lower courts is correct in finding that it is Legaspi Towers owns the air space above Concession 3? [YES]
The air space wherein Concession 4 was built is not only above Concession 3, but above the entire condominium building.
The ownership of the air space above Concession 3 is not a necessary incident of the ownership of Concession 3.
Under the Condominium Act, what a unit includes is only the four walls, ceilings, windows and doors thereof. It certainly
does not include the roof or the areas above it. In a condominium, common areas are portions outside units, and units are
parts for private ownership. The airspace above Concession 3, not part of the unit, logically belongs to common areas.
Granting the petitioner's air space claim may lead to additional construction on top of Concession 4, risking the "impairment
of the structural integrity" prohibited by the Master Deed.
(2) Whether Article 448 of the Civil Code and our ruling in Depra v. Dumlao are applicable to the parties' situation. [NO]
Depra v. Dumlao pertained to a builder encroaching on another's property. The court ruled that the owner of the land has
the option to either pay for the encroaching part or sell it to the builder in good faith. The court directed the RTC to
determine the value of the encroached area, construction expenses, increase in value, and whether the area's value
exceeds that of the building.
In this case however, the land belongs to a condominium corporation, and the builder, as a unit owner, is considered a
stockholder or member under the Condominium Act.
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith are inapplicable in cases covered by the Condominium Act
where the owner of the land and the builder are already bound by specific legislation on the subject property (the
Condominium Act), and by contract (the Master Deed and the By-Laws of the condominium corporation).
RULING: Petition in G.R. No. 199353 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Petition in G.R. No. 199389 is GRANTED. The
Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated November 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88082
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Leviste Management System, Inc. is ORDERED to remove Concession 4 at its own expense.
Picture for reference