The Motor Court

The Coco Palm Ville Subdivision (CPVS) is a Model C residential subdivision owned, developed and marketed by WVU Real Estate Corporation. The corporation through its Project Manager contracted the special services of two of the engineers and architects of the government’s Land and Building Regulation Authority (LBRA) to prepare all the plans and project feasibility study for the said CPVS Subdivision. This decision ensured the approval of the residential subdivision project at much faster phase than usual. The corporate decision was based on the premise that nobody in the said office would try to oppose any and all of the specifications of the said project since the persons who prepared it were their own. As expected, the project was approved and the corporation spent just fair enough for its processing with minimal facilitation fees.

In the development phase of the project, WVU hired a geodetic engineer who was paid on per residential lot with corresponding transfer certificate of title that would be developed and approved. This assured the faster approval of the individual title through the direct involvement and follow up of the geodetic engineer in the processing of the titles. The geodetic engineer was paid according to the number of the approved titles of residential lots he turned in.

The geodetic engineer excluded an area of one meter wide in the south western portion of the entire subdivision. The rationale that he gave was that “it would safeguard any adverse claim of the owners of the adjacent parcel of land regarding encroachment on their property.” The possible owners of the residential lots in the subdivision would have peace of mind regarding any possible case of encroachment. On the other hand the management of the Sta. Maria Corporation, the owner of the adjacent parcel of land, also gave an allowance of an area of one meter wide parallel to what the WVU Real Estate Corporation excluded. The enterprising informal settlers, who were the recipients of the Sta. Maria Corporation’s residential lot donations, claimed the entire two meters wide area of land jointly excluded by the two corporations. One family of informal settler, who are not included in the list of recipients, just erected a small shack on the two meters wide and eight meters long area just adjacent and opposite the motor court area or the “cul-de-sac” on the south western side of the CPVS Residential Subdivision. The project manager who was then overseeing the final development phase of the subdivision project, warned the mother of the informal settler family that they should not get inside the portion allotted to the motor court. It is an area designed to enable maneuvering of motor vehicles, especially if two vehicles could not pass through a secondary road at the same time. The mother of the informal settler’s family agreed as if she understood the explanation.

About twenty years had passed and the residential lot owners (cum investors) of the opposite lots at the dead end of the motor court or “cul-de-sac” had sold their respective property to second owners. The second owners both built their own houses. But they were both wondering why there was a shack owned by the informal settlers between their lots. At first, the residential lot owner situated on the left side facing the direction of the “cul-de-sac” talked to the son of the informal settler. She explained to him that they have no right to build an extension of their shack within the dead end or “cul-de-sac”, for it is still part of the design and common property of the subdivision. The son of the informal settler, who was also a barangay tanod or peace keeper ignored the explanation of one of the subdivision residents. The lady resident made several attempts to tell the informal settler to vacate the portion of the road’s dead end that they occupied illegally. The owners of the opposite residences at the end of the “cul-de-sac” agreed to take up their complaint to the barangay. But the chairman referred them to the former project manager, hinting that the latter had an authority in deciding over the issue. So, the lot owners went to the former project manager and expressed their complaint. Initially, the former project manager explained that the motor court or dead end was part of the design and common property of the subdivision and it should remain clear of any obstructions for maneuvering purpose. He told them to make an official complaint letter addressed to the Barangay Chairman and noted by the President of the Homeowners’ Association of the CPVS Ville Residential Subdivision. He requested them to include him as one of the principal resource persons required to be present during the preliminary talk about the said case in the barangay. After two weeks the former project manager received a letter of invitation from the Barangay Chairman regarding the said case.

A day before the scheduled preliminary talk about the case, the Barangay Chairman inhibited himself, without any reason stated formally and instead delegated the officer-of-the-day to preside over the case. The former project manager thought that the Chairman possibly avoided a situation where he would have to preside and later on decide on a case involving one of the barangay tanods or peace keepers. On the day of the preliminary talk, the former project manager arrived early and was able to talk to the officer-of-the-day regarding the inclusion and use of the motor court within the design of the subdivision. They were informally discussing the topic when the concerned barangay tanod or peace keeper arrived. They greeted each other courteously for they also knew each other long before. The former project manager started again his explanation about the use of the motor court. He showed them the entire development plan of the CPVS Ville Residential Subdivision which was approved by the LBRA January 30, 1987 (about 24 years ago from the date of the case). He explained to them that under the Minimum Design Standards of Presidential Decree 957, F. Design/Planning Considerations, 1.9 Motor courts / drive courts; that the branch type of motor court is part of the design of the Model C Subdivision and the design and actual measurement conformed to the requirement of law. He showed them the example of the branch type of motor court in Figure 5 of the attachment of P.D. 957 and that the road network and the parks and playground comprised 30% of the total area generally called open space. The saleable area of the subdivision should be 70% maximum. The barangay tanod on hearing the explanation agreed to demolish the extension of his shack. By about this time, the two complainants arrived. Since the barangay tanod gave assurance that he would comply, the former project manager reiterated to the complainants what had transpired from the informal talk about the case. The barangay tanod informed everyone present that he could have complied instantaneously had he been informed by the two complainants. He also lamented the fact that as a barangay tanod, he now has a documented case in the barangay record. He even mentioned that the former project manager allowed his mother to build an extension of their shack in the motor court. The former project manager countered his statement by reiterating that someone like him who knew the requirement and the design of the subdivision would not allow that. He told the barangay tanod that for at least three times he had reminded the tanod’s mother that their shack was encroaching on the motor court. The former project manager, felt that these preceding statements were merely face saving arguments of someone who should be knowledgeable of the law, being part of the peace keeping and law enforcing group. Thus, he requested everyone present that the case will not be recorded just like any other case but merely an occasion to hear explanations from all concerned. The complainants stated that at their combined expense, they would build a concrete wall at the boundary of the dead end. The preliminary talk formally ended. 

Alternative Courses of Actions:

o   The President or any authorized or designated officers of the Homeowners’ Association should have explained to the concerned barangay tanod about the inclusion of the motor / drive courts in the entire design and specifications of a Model C Residential Subdivision approved under P.D. 957.

o   In the absence or inactivity of the Homeowners’ Association officers, the barangay officials, headed by the Chairperson should make sure of the proper implementation of the appropriate laws or rules and regulations within the subdivision, which is still part of the barangay.

o   The complainants should have channelled their complaint to the Homeowners’ Association Officers. In the absence or inactivity of the association, then it should be coursed through the barangay council.

Please note that the case or incident enabled an opportuned occasion to explain even partially about the minimum design standards of P.D. 957. As an old cliché say “Ignorance of the law excuses no one.”