The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its July 20, 2022 decision that allowed the homeowners of BF Homes in Parañaque City to regulate the entry through five roads leading to the subdivision of vehicles which are not owned by residents. With the ruling, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) which had ordered the BF Federation of Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (BFFHAI) to open the gates and allow the entry of vehicles on Aguirre Avenue, Elizalde Street, El Grande Avenue, Concha Cruz Street, and Tropical Street and to stop imposing entry fees on utility and delivery service providers. The motion for reconsideration assailed as illegal the CA’s 2022 decision since it amended it 1999 ruling which upheld the local government of Paranaque’s reclassification of the El Grande Avenue and Aguirre Avenue as “commercial areas.” It insisted that with the declaration that the roads as “commercial areas,” they have become public roads. It pointed out that the subject roads should be opened because these are being maintained using public funds and that BFFHAI has no authority to sell car stickers. But the CA said that El Grande Avenue and Aguirre Avenue remain to be private properties despite their reclassification as commercial areas. It noted that while the Supreme Court (SC) had approved the reclassification of the two avenues into commercial areas in 2007, the SC did not declare them as public roads. “Needless to say, however, the reclassification does not automatically open the lands to public use,” the CA stressed. At the same time, the CA affirmed the authority of BFFHAI to regulate passage through subdivision and village roads under Section 10 (d) of Republic Act 9904, the Magna Carta For Homeowners and Homeowners’ Association. It said that Section 10(d) of RA 9904 provides that an association has the right to “regulate access to, or passage through the subdivision/village roads for purposes of preserving privacy, tranquility, internal security, safety and traffic order.” “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. It took note that “BFFHAI 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.” The resolution that denied the motion was written by Associate Justice Edwin A. Sorongon with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Eduardo S. Ramos Jr.