RESTRICTIONS

The restrictive covenant subject matter of this case is not intended for the benefit of adjacent homeowners but to prescribe the uses of the building, i.e., to ensure, among other things, that the structures built on the subdivision project would prevent overcrowding and promote privacy among subdivision dwellers. Petitioners’ argument that their immediate neighbors did not oppose the construction work; and that the expansion is necessary to accommodate the individual families of their children must fail. Neither can petitioners claim good faith as the restrictive covenants are explicitly written in the contract to sell and annotated at the back of the transfer certificate of title. Since the expansion constructed exceeds the floor area limits of the restrictive covenant, petitioners can be required to demolish the structure to the extent that it exceeds the prescribed floor plan. The ruling in Ayala Corporation vs. Ray Burton Development Corporation, 294 SCRA 48, which merely adjudged the payment of damages in lieu of demolition does not apply to this case. (Fajardo vs. Freedom Build, Inc. G.R. No. 134692, August 1, 2000)