Dream community turns nightmare: Homeowners challenge alleged illegal group at premium Rizal township

SAN MATEO, Rizal — The majority of lot owners at a premium mountain township development in San Mateo, Rizal are crying foul over what they describe as the railroading of a legitimate government complaint — one that has been pending for nearly a year with no resolution in sight, even as a developer-backed homeowners association election is set to push through this week.

The township, developed by a subsidiary of one of the country's largest real estate conglomerates, has become the center of a growing dispute between lot owners and the developer, who residents allege organized multiple Homeowners Associations (HOAs) without the proper consent of the majority lot owners — a direct violation of Republic Act No. 9904, otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations.

Residents say they filed a formal petition for revocation with the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) Regional Office as early as July 2025. To date, nearly ten months later, no resolution has been issued on the merits of their complaint.

Yet despite the pending case, a General Assembly for the selection of an Election Committee (ELECOM) — a precursor to a full HOA Board election — has been scheduled for this week, with the event reportedly being facilitated with the involvement of DHSUD regional representatives.

"We believe in the HOA system," said one lot owner who asked not to be named. "But we cannot accept an HOA that was formed illegally, that collects dues without a legal basis, and that is being used to shield the developer from accountability for amenities that were promised to us years ago and remain undelivered."

Among the undelivered commitments residents cite: a chapel, a public outlook park, a multi-purpose clubhouse, perimeter fencing, adequate road lighting, and nature trails — all prominently featured in the developer's marketing materials at the time of sale.

A pattern of disregard

According to documents reviewed by this reporter, residents sent a collective non-recognition letter to the developer in September 2025, declaring their refusal to participate in any HOA elections while the revocation petition remained pending. The developer, however, proceeded with an election attempt in September 2025, which itself failed to constitute an Election Committee.

Rather than resolving the underlying complaint, DHSUD Region 4A issued a new order in March 2026 directing the conduct of a fresh General Assembly — without first adjudicating whether the HOAs in question were legally organized in the first place.

Critics say this sequence of events raises serious questions about regulatory capture and the independence of DHSUD's regional offices in disputes involving large, well-connected developers.

DHSUD Secretary Jose Ramon Aliling has previously called for the "expeditious handling and disposition" of HOA-related disputes, stating that election issues "should never take a long time to resolve." Residents say the Secretary's directive appears to have gone unheeded at the regional level.

Residents fight back

Undeterred, a group of residents plans to attend the May General Assembly — but under formal protest. They have prepared a notarized Manifestation of Attendance Under Protest, which they will present to the Presiding Officer and request be attached to the official minutes of the proceedings.

Their demands remain consistent: suspend all HOA-related activities pending resolution of the revocation petition; compel the developer to execute a binding commitment to deliver all unmet amenities; and ensure that any future HOA formation strictly complies with the requirements of RA 9904 and DHSUD Department Circular No. 2024-018.

"We are not against having an HOA," another resident said. "We are against having one that was built on fraud, that answers to the developer instead of the homeowners, and that lets the developer off the hook for the promises they made when they sold us our lots."

The developer and DHSUD Region 4A had not responded to requests for comment as of press time.

This article is based on documents and accounts provided by concerned lot owners of the subdivision. Names of individual residents have been withheld at their request. Supporting documents, including the original petition, follow-up letters, joint sworn statement and DHSUD orders, are available upon request.