G.R. No. 126699 - AYALA CORPORATION, VS. RAY BURTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

Ruling

Accordingly, aside from dismissing RBDCs appeal, the Order of February 13, 1992 also "set aside" the appealed HLRB decision. From this order, AYALA sought a reconsideration or clarification, noting, inter alia, that while the said order has ruled that AYALA can no longer enforce the Deed Restrictions against RBDC, it does not expressly state that RBDC is bound by the Revised Deed Restrictions. Clarifying this matter, the Office of the President issued a Resolution dated April 21, 1992, [25] modifying the February 13, 1992 order, ruling: (1) that RBDC is bound by the original Deed Restrictions, but it has the option to accept and be bound by the Revised Deed Restrictions in lieu of the former; and (2) that the "HLRB decision dated 22 August 1990, to the extent that it absolved Ayala from the charge of unsound business practice, subject of the basic complaint, is affirmed." This time RBDC moved for a reconsideration of the April 21, 1992 Order, but the motion was denied in a Resolution dated October 15, 1993. [26] Another Resolution of March 21, 1994 [27] was issued denying with finality RBDCs second motion for reconsideration. AYALA then filed a Manifestation [28] in Civil Case No. 91-220, informing the trial court of the pertinent rulings/resolutions in the proceedings before the HLRB and the Office of the President, which rulings, AYALA suggested, amount to res judicata on the issue of the validity and enforceability of the Deed Restrictions involved in the said civil case. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a Decision on April 28, 1994 in favor of RBDC, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and as a consequence: 1. The instant case is hereby dismissed; 2. The motion/application for the annotation of the lis pendens is hereby DENIED; 3. The motion/application to hold defendant in continuing contempt is hereby also DENIED; 4. No damages is awarded to any of the parties; 5. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay the defendant P30,000.00 for and as attorneys fees and litigation expenses; "With costs against plaintiff. "SO ORDERED.