A ruling was issued by the Supreme Court (SC) telling homeowners associations (HOAs) that it can sanction erring members who failed to pay association dues, but cannot deprive them of their right to use common areas, including subdivision roads.

This was stated in a decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa dated 7 April 2026, wherein the SC’s Third Division dismissed the petition filed by the former directors and officers           of La Costa Brava Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Spouses Linley and Juvy Retirado failed to pay their monthly association dues from 2016 to 2021, thus the Association declared them delinquent and enforced several penalties.

The couple were banned of grass-cutting or maintenance within five meters from the property; reducing the frequency of garbage collection; prohibiting food, package, appliance, and gas deliveries to their residence; preventing taxis, tricycles, and ride-hailing vehicles from entering the subdivision to fetch them; barring guests from entering the subdivision to visit them; and

imposing delivery fees on trucks and vehicles bringing supplies and materials to their construction site.

This prompted the spouses to file a complaint before the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC), which ruled that the sanctions violated Republic Act No.

(RA) 9904, or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations.

The HSAC also permanently disqualified the officers responsible from holding any

position in the Association.

The officers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition.

The ruling of the HSAC on the sanctions was affirmed by the SC.

It said Section 7(a) of RA 9904 grants homeowners two distinct rights: the right to

enjoy basic community services and facilities, and the right to use common areas.

The high bench clarified that HOAs may impose sanctions on delinquent members

under their bylaws. However, this authority is not absolute.

The court said HOAs can restrict delinquent members from accessing or enjoying certain community services and

facilities, but they cannot deny the right to use common areas like roads.

Applying this distinction, the SC held that restricting deliveries, transportation, and guests effectively violated the spouses’ right to use the subdivision roads.

The SC also rejected the officers’ claim that their violation was not grave enough to warrant permanent disqualification from holding office in the Association.

It ruled that restricting access to subdivision roads for basic needs such as the delivery of goods and transportation caused great harm and dangerous consequences—a violation serious and grave enough to justify the permanent disqualification.