Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40319:g-r-no-134692-august-1,-2000-eliseo-fajardo,-jr-,-et-al-v-freedom-to-build&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:00:51+00:00

Document:
ELISEO FAJARDO, JR., and MARISSA FAJARDO, Petitioners, v. FREEDOM TO BUILD, INC., Respondent.
"Easements.	For the good of the entire community, the homeowner must observe a two-meter easement in front. No structure of any kind (store, garage, bodega, etc.) may be built on the front easement.
The above restrictions were also contained in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-115384 covering the lot issued in the name of petitioner-spouses.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant spouses Eliseo B. Fajardo, Jr., and Marissa F. Fajardo are hereby directed to immediately demolish and remove the extension of their expanded housing unit that exceeds the limitations imposed by the Restrictive Covenant, otherwise the Branch Sheriff of this Court shall execute this decision at the expense of the defendants.
"As to damages and attorney’s fees, it appearing from the records of this case that no evidence to sustain the same was adduced by either of the parties, the Court deems it proper not to award any.
On appeal to it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
There appears to be no cogent reasons for not upholding restrictive covenants aimed to promote aesthetics, health, and privacy or to prevent overcrowding.
Petitioners raise the issue of the personality of respondent to enforce the provisions of the covenant. Broadly speaking, a suit for equitable enforcement of a restrictive covenant can only be made by one for whose benefit it is intended. 19 It is not thus normally enforceable by one who has no right nor interest in the land for the benefit of which the restriction has been imposed. 20 Thus, a developer of a subdivision can enforce restrictions, even as against remote grantees of lots, only if he retains part of the land. 21 There would have been merit in the argument of petitioners — that respondent, having relinquished ownership of the subdivision to the homeowners, is precluded from claiming any right or interest on the same property — had not the homeowners’ association, confirmed by its board of directors, allowed respondent to enforce the provisions of the restrictive covenant.
(3)	Since the extension constructed exceeds the floor area limits of the Restrictive Covenant, petitioner-spouses can be required to demolish the structure to the extent that it exceeds the prescribed floor area limits.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision, dated 13 July 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 50085, sustaining that of the court a quo, is AFFIRMED. No costs.
Melo, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.
1.	Restrictive Covenants: Appendix, Records, p. 11.
3.	By mutual agreement between the Homeowners Association and the developer, the restriction was relaxed from 4-meters to a 2-meter setback.
5.	Memorandum for respondent, Rollo, pp. 62-63.
6.	Kutchinski v. Thompson, 101 NJ Eq. 649, 138 A569.
7.	Moses v. Hazen, 63 App DC 104, 69 F 2d 842, 98 ALR 386.
8.	Wilson v. Owen (Mo) 261 SW2d 19.
9.	Firth v. Marovich, 160 Cal 257, 116 P729.
10.	Townsend v. Allen, 114 Cal App 2d 291, 250 P2d 292, 39 ALR 2d 1108.
11.	Fusha v. Dacono Town Site Co. 60 Colo 315, 153 P226.
13.	Whitney v. Union R. Co. 11 Gray (Mass) 359.
15.	Bagiano v. Harrow, 247 Mich 481 226 NW 262.
16.	Hutchinson v. Ulrich, 145 III 336, 34 NE 556.
17.	Id, See Schwarzchild v. Welborne 186 Va 1052, 45 SE 2d 152.
18.	Memorandum for respondent, Rollo, p.62.
19.	Aull v. Kraft (Tex Civ App) 286 SW2d 460.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.