THE Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the appeal of the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) to open the five gates of the BF Homes Subdivision in Parañaque City to vehicles that are not accredited by the subdivision.

In a 14-page resolution, the court’s former Ninth Division affirmed its earlier ruling that the contested roads remain as private properties despite having been classified earlier as commercial areas.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the CA reversed the ruling of HSAC ordering the BF Federation of Homeowners’ Associations Inc. (BFFHAI) to allow the entry of all vehicles on Aguirre Avenue, Elizalde Street, El Grande Avenue, Concha Cruz Street and Tropical Street in the BF Homes Subdivision and to stop charging entry fees on utility and delivery service providers.

In its appeal, the HSAC and several other individuals argued that the CA ruling was illegal, since it contradicts the court’s ruling on Nov. 16, 1999, which upheld the decision of the city government to reclassify El Grande and Aguirre avenues as “commercial areas.”

As “commercial areas,” the two streets “have become public roads” and should be opened to the public, the respondents said.

They also maintained that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the HSAC to enjoin BFFHAI from requiring stickers before allowing vehicles not accredited by the association on the roads in question is justified.

The CA, however, held that El Grande and Aguirre avenues remain private properties despite their reclassification as commercial areas.

The court noted that while the Supreme Court approved the reclassification of the two roads in a decision issued on Feb. 7, 2007, it did not declare them as public roads.

“Needless to say, however, the reclassification does not automatically open the lands to public use,” the CA pointed out.

It also upheld the BFFHAI’s authority to regulate passage through subdivision and village roads under Section 10 (d) Republic Act 9904 (An Act Providing For A Magna Carta For Homeowners and Homeowners’ Association, and For Other Purposes).

“The perceived inconvenience or moral suffering private respondents may suffer due to BFFHAI’s continuous implementation of the security measures is easily offset by the right of homeowners’ associations (including federations) to set goals for the promotion of safety and security, peace, comfort, and the general welfare of their residents…,” the CA said.

The association “has consistently explained that the fees collected are intended for the salary of their security guards, maintenance of the roads and payment of the real property taxes due,” it added.

The court noted that the respondents failed to present evidence to prove that public funds were used to maintain the roads in question.