G.R. No. 216492 - ARTOO P. GARIN, VS. CITY OF MUNTINLUPA, HON. INTING, JAIME FRESNEDI, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND CAPACITY AS CITY MAYOR, KATARUNGAN VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED. Likewise, the instant case is temporarily suspended pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies by petitioner involving the issue herein with the HLURB. SO ORDERED[.] [45] The temporary suspension becomes indefmite pending any further action by petitioner. It creates the presumption that the trial court will never act on the Petition for Mandamus if petitioner does not file his case with the proper administrative agency. Thus, while the trial court's Order may appear to be an interlocutory order, it effectively dismissed the Petition without explicitly saying so. Hence, petitioner availed of the proper remedy. In any case, petitioner elevated his appeal to this Court based on what he perceived to be errors of law, not errors of fact, by the trial court. II Petitioner's main argument is that the trial court erred in refusing to resolve the issue on the Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02047's constitutionality since it was for the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to resolve. He prays that the Order be set aside and that Section 10 of the Ordinance be declared unconstitutional. This Court's power of judicial review may only be exercised if a case presents the following requisites: first, an actual case or controversy; second, the person bringing the case must have legal standing; third, the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and fourth, the resolution of the constitutional question must be the very lis mota of the case, that is, it must be absolutely necessary for its determination. [46] The first three requisites are present here. The denial of petitioner's building permit application presents an actual controversy and legal standing. Petitioner is the homeowner who was directly "injured" by the non-issuance of the clearance by respondent Katarungan. He also raised the constitutional question at the earliest possible opportunity, submitting it before the trial court after his permit application had been denied. The last requisite, however, remains wanting. Petitioner's cause of action can be resolved without having to pass upon the constitutional question. Petitioner argues that the requirements outlined in Section 10 of Muntinlupa City Ordinance No. 02-047 are unconstitutional since requiring a homeowners' association clearance violates his right to disassociate. Section 10 ofthe Ordinance states: Section 10. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS. No project shall be approved unless the applicable requirements per project are complied with: * Duly Accomplished and Notarized Application Form *One Set of Plan * One copy of lot plan with Vicinity Map * Transfer Certificate of Title * Barangay Clearance/Barangay Resolution * Homeowners Association Clearance * Deed of Sale * Certification from MDCC/PHILVOCS [47] Here, respondent Katarungan refused to issue petitioner the required clearance until h