HLURB Mocks the Magna Carta of Homeowners Association

Recently, a three-page decision has been made by HLURB regarding the first segregation request made by Lancaster Residences last May 2011 from the existing homeowners association due to its various anomalies on its incorporation and operations. It was a move by the then ADHOC Committee. The decision was that HLURB denies the segregation request. Let us see the reason why it was denied and how come we saw that HLURB mocks the same laws that is supposed to be there to insist the existence of their agency as a government institution.

On October 15, 2014 after several people from the neighborhood has pushed Commissioner Antonio Bernardo of HLURB to finally set a decision to the long overdue segregation case filed by the then ADHOC Committee as led by Richard Tanglao last May 2011. A decision was finally made through Atty. Jojee Nepomuceno, an arbiter for HLURB. The decision was denied.

The following are the  reasons listed by Richard Tanglao why he is petitioning for a segregation from the existing homeowners association (Lancaster Estates Homeowners, reg 14191)

1. The registration of Lancaster Estates HOA Inc. was made without prior notice to the lot owners;
2. The members of the Board of Directors of Lancaster Estates HOA, Inc. are not residents of the subdivision;
3. The Board are not readily available for assistance when members needed immediate support in matters such as election, peace and order, security, street lights, maintenance of the subdivision;
4. The Board has failed to provide basic services.

HLURB purposely ruled that they are denying the request for the following reasons as quoted;

Answer to query 1 and 2 of Tanglao's position.

Section 30 of PD957 as well as the rules and regulation existing at the time the respondent association was registered (per resolution no. R-770) allows the organization and registration of a homeowners association as initiated by the owner/developer of the subdivision project. Hence, we do not find anything irregular in the organization of the respondent association.

Additionally, the reason why the segregation request was denied is because Richard Tanglao has failed to provide ample evidences on his petition to segregate as he failed to provide conditions that is set from Rule IX of the Rules on Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Association as specified on the decision paper of HLURB.


Now, let us now point out how HLURB mocks the law for homeowners association and thus provides injustice to the residents of Lancaster Residences due to their decision.


PD957 Section 30 states that 

Organization of Homeowners Association. The owner or developer of a subdivision project or condominium project shall initiate the organization of a homeowners association among the buyers and residents of the projects for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development. 

We have highlighted the word "among". In the english dictionary, "among" means, each with the other or mutually. Thus it means, residents must be involved in creating the homeowners association.

However what happened was that all the board of directors as filed for LEHOA's Articles of Incorporation is that all of them are employees of Property Company of Friends and are not residents of Lancaster Residences in Alapan 2A Imus Cavite as proven by their cedula.

Board of Directors from the Articles of Incorporation of LEHOA last September 2009.

Additionally, HLURB has mentioned Resolution No. R-770 as one of the reasons of their decision why LEHOA was properly registered. So what is with Resolution 770?

• In Section 10 of R-770, it states that the allowed number of board directors must be 5 to 15 elected members of the association. And in no case will lessees, occupants or developers must constitute a majority of the board. However, the five people stated on their articles of incorporation are all employees of the real-estate developer during that time and no election was made among the residents as far as memory can remember during the year 2009.
• In Section 34 of R-770, it states that a majority of the directors should be free from any business or other relationship that could materially interfere with the exercise of their independent judgment. Yet most of its first directors are all employees of the developer. One is a legal counsel and one is also a project manager for Lancaster Estates during that time (now a vice president of the same company)
• In Section 52 of R-770, it states that there should be a formal and transparent procedure for the nomination of new board directors and officers of the association. But there was none and this violates Tanglao's number 1 reason.
• In Section 53 of R-770, it states that directors should be ready to enter into a dialogue with association members based on understanding of mutual interests and objectives. This violates Tanglao's number 3 premise.
• In Section 60 of R-770, it states that the qualification of directors of the HOA must be of legal age, and actual residents of the subdivision for at least six months. With the CTC presented by the first 5 board directors of LEHOA, they seem to be not residents whatsoever.
• In Section 66 of R-770, it states that there should be an election for "board of directors" every year. Since 2009 until today, there was no election held for board of directors and Pro-Friends is self assigning LEHOA's board of directors from their Estate and Asset Management Division as well as their Customer Relations Department. Currently, the president of LEHOA is an AVP for Public Information and the Vice President is a CRD Manager of Pro-Friends.
• In Section 69 of R770, it states that the by-laws drafted by LEHOA must not conflict with R-770. With Article VII of LEHOA by-laws alone, it has already gone against various mentioned sections of R-770 as seen below:
  

The developer constitutes the majority of the seats for board of directors which is constrasting to R-770 in LEHOA By-laws

Then there is still a new law that is supposed to be upheld by HLURB starting January 2010, a few months after the incorporation of LEHOA which provide stricter rules of the independence of a homeowners association from the control of a real estate developer. Republic Act 9904 or the Magna Carta for Homeowners Association. See LEHOA By-Laws and PD957 and RA9904 .



Against all these revelations, the request for segregation from LEHOA last May 2011 by Richard Tanglao was still denied by HLURB through Atty. Nepomuceno.


It is however perplexing to know how HLURB denied the segregation request amidst the outstanding violations in R-770 and how the petitioner, Richard Tanglao now seems to be disinterested on filing an appeal and is coordinating directly and in unison with  the CRD-Manager of Pro-Friends and self-proclaimed Vice President of LEHOA.

Denied Segregation Request by Richard Tanglao

UPDATE
We have emailed HLURB Commissioner Antonio M. Bernardo about what he can say about the performance of his arbiters in HLURB-Southern Tagalog Region as exposed through this article. And this was his reply:

His only response was for us to file an appeal and pay the necessary fee as per their Rules of Procedure.

All we can say is, we already helped them by making their jobs easier through pointing out sections of their own resolution that they themselves could either do not understand or bypassed. We made their jobs easier as it is a pity to  take them 3 years and 5 months just to decide on a simple case and type it on a 3-page decision document. And they still have the balls to tell us to pay them so they can seat on the case for another 3 years? HLURB may either be joking, or incompetent.

If there are any interested parties in our community to file an appeal, they have a deadline. Or better yet, file a case against this so-called public servants in the ombudsman for derailing the law for homeowners associations.



Related Articles:

• Homeowners Dues Illegally Being Collected by the Developer
  This article discusses the legality of HOA dues collection in Lancaster Residences by LEHOA
• LEHOA Bylaws and PD957 and RA9904
  The article explains PD957 and RA9904 which are the tenets of law for homeowners associations and compares the bylaws promulgated by LEHOA
• How LEHOA was "legalized" to be controlled by the real-estate developer.
  This article explains how LEHOA was legalized amidst all odds.
• Estimated Collections of LEHOA
  This article gives an overview of the potential collection generation of LEHOA in comparison with other subdivisions.