SECOND DIVISION
VICENTA CANTEMPRATE, G.R.
No. 171399
ZENAIDA DELFIN, ELVIRA
MILLAN, FEVITO G. OBIDOS,
MACARIO
LILIA CAMACHO, LILIA MEJIA,
EMILIA DIMAS, ESTRELLA
EUGENIO, MILAGROS
L. CRUZ,
LEONARDO
ECAT, NORA CARPIO
MORALES, J.*,
MASANGKAY, JESUS AYSON, Acting Chairperson,
NILO SAMIA and CARMENCITA TINGA,
LORNA RAMIREZ, VELASCO,
JR.
Petitioners, LEONARDO DE CASTRO, JJ.** and
BRION,
JJ.
-
versus -
CRS REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, CRISANTA
BENNIE CUASON and CALEB
ANG,
Respondents. May 8, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
Tinga, J.:
This is a petition
for
review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
assailing the decision[2]
and resolution[3] of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81859. The Court of Appeals decision affirmed the
decision[4] of
the Office of the President, which adopted the decision[5] of
the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB) dismissing petitioners’
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, while the resolution denied petitioners’
motion for reconsideration.
The following factual antecedents are
matters of record.
Herein petitioners Vicenta
Cantemprate, Zenaida Delfin, Elvira Millan, Fevito G. Obidos, Macario Yap,
Carmen Yap, Lilia Camacho, Lilia Mejia, Emilia Dimas, Estrella Eugenio,
Milagros L. Cruz, Leonardo Ecat, Nora Masangkay, Jesus Ayson, Nilo Samia,
Carmencita Morales and Lorna Ramirez were among those who filed before the
HLURB a complaint[6] for the
delivery of certificates of title against respondents CRS Realty Development
Corporation (CRS Realty), Crisanta Salvador and Cesar Casal.[7]
The complaint alleged that respondent
Casal was the owner of a parcel of land situated in General Mariano Alvarez,
Cavite known as the CRS Farm Estate while respondent Salvador was the president
of respondent CRS Realty, the developer of CRS Farm Estate. Petitioners averred
that they had bought on an installment basis subdivision lots from respondent CRS
Realty and had paid in full the agreed purchase prices; but notwithstanding the
full payment and despite demands, respondents failed and refused to deliver the
corresponding certificates of title to petitioners. The complaint prayed that
respondents be ordered to deliver the certificates of title corresponding to
the lots petitioners had purchased and paid in full and to pay petitioners
damages.[8]
An amended complaint[9]
was subsequently filed impleading other respondents, among them, the Heirs of Vitaliano
and Enrique Laudiza, who were the predecessors-in-interest of respondent Casal,
herein respondents Bennie Cuason and Caleb Ang, to whom respondent Casal
purportedly transferred the subdivision lots and one Leticia Ligon. The amended
complaint alleged that by virtue of the deed of absolute sale executed between
respondent Casal and respondents Ang and Cuason, Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 669732 covering the subdivided property was issued in the names of
respondents Ang and Cuason as registered owners thereof.[10]
The amended complaint prayed for
additional reliefs, namely: (1) that petitioners be declared the lawful owners
of the subdivision lots; (2) that the deed of
absolute sale executed between respondent Casal and
respondents Cuason and Ang and TCT
No. 669732 be nullified; and (3) that respondents Cuason and Ang be ordered to
reconvey the subdivision lots to petitioners.[11]
In his answer,[12]
respondent Casal averred that despite his willingness to deliver them, petitioners
refused to accept the certificates of title with notice of lis pendens covering
the subdivision lots. The notice of lis pendens pertained to Civil Case
No. BCV-90-14, entitled “Heirs of Vitaliano
and Enrique Laudiza, represented by their Attorney-In-Fact Rosa Medina,
Plaintiffs, v. Cesar E. Casal, CRS Realty and Development Corporation and the
Register of Deeds of
By way of special and affirmative
defenses, respondent Casal further averred that the obligation to deliver the
certificate of titles without encumbrance fell on respondent CRS Realty on the
following grounds: (1) as stipulated in the subdivision development agreement
between respondents Casal and CRS Realty executed on 06 September 1988, the
certificates of title of the subdivision lots would be transferred to the
developer or buyers thereof only upon full payment of the purchase price of
each lot; (2) the contracts to sell were executed between petitioners and respondent
CRS Realty; and (3) the monthly amortizations were paid to respondent CRS
Realty and not to respondent Casal.[14]
Respondent Casal also alleged that he
subsequently entered into a purchase agreement over the unsold portions of the
subdivision with respondents Ang, Cuason and one Florinda Estrada who assumed
the obligation to reimburse the amortizations already paid by petitioners.[15]
In her answer, respondent
Respondents Ang and Cuason claimed in
their answer with counterclaim[16]
that respondent Casal remained the registered owner of the subdivided lots when
they were transferred to them and that the failure by petitioners to annotate their
claims on the title indicated that they were unfounded. Respondent CRS Realty
and the Heirs of Laudiza were declared in default for failure to file their
respective answers.[17]
On
The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgement [sic] is hereby rendered as follows:
1) For respondents CRS Realty and Development Corp.,
Crisanta Salvador, and Cesar Casal to, jointly and severally:
a) cause the delivery or to deliver the individual titles,
within thirty (30) days from the finality of the decision, to the following
complainants who have fully paid the purchase price of their lots, and to whom
Deeds of Sale were issued, to wit:
1. Vicenta Cantemprate = Lots 1 to 8 Block 2
Lots
5 & 6 Block 13
2. Leonardo/Felicidad Ecat = Lots 21, 23 & 25
Block 11
3.
Jesus Ayson =
4. Lilia Camacho =
5. Zenaida Delfin =
6. Natividad Garcia =
7. Nora Masangkay =
8. Elvira Millan =
9. Fevito Obidos
= Lot 1 Block 3
10. Josefina Quinia =
11. Nilo Samia = Lot 1 Block 9
12. Rosel Vedar =
13. Macario/Carmen
14. Estrella/Danilo Eugerio =
15. Nerissa Cabanag =
16. Milagros Cruz = Lots 11 & 13 to 16 Block 3
17. Erlinda Delleva =
18. Lilia Mejia =
19. Carmen Yap/H. Capulso =
20. Mercedes Montano =
21. Teresita Manuel =
22. Amalia Sambile =
23. Carmencita Lorna Ramirez =
24. Emilia Dimas =
25. Rosita Torres =
26. Alladin Abubakar =
27. Manuel Andaya =
28. Remigio Araya =
29. J. Ayson/R. Elquiero =
30. L. Bernal/D. Morada =
31. Rosa Nely Buna =
32. Nestor Calderon =
33. Ernesto Capulso =
34. Jorge Chiuco
= Lots 12, 13 & 15 to 17 Block 4
35.
36. Erna Daniel =
37. Zenaida De Guzman = Lots 19, 20 & 21 Block 10
38. Joselito De Lara = Lot 1 Block 11
39. J. De Lara/N. Gusi =
40. Virginia De La Paz =
41. Anastacia De
42.
43. Josefina De Vera =
44. Julieta Danzon =
45. Constancia Diestro =
46. Corazon Ducusin = Lots 14, 16 & 18 Block 11
47. Juanita Flores = Lots 2 & 4 Block 5
48. Remedios Galman =
49. Mila Galamay =
50.
51. Rizalina Guerrero =
52. Nema Ida =
53. Milagros Jamir =
54. Violeta Josef = Lots 3 & 5 Block 5
55. Marivic Ladines =
56. Eulogio Legacion = Lots 8 & 9 Block 3
57. Emerita Mauri =
58. Mina Mary & Co. = Lot 1
Block 4
59. Babyrose Navarro =
60. Lauretto Nazarro = Lots 14 to 18 Block 10
61. Amelia Nomura = Lots 4 & 5 Block 9
62. Virgilio Ocampo =
63. Norma Paguagan =
64. Nicostrato Pelayo = Lots 7 & 9 Block 11
65. Gloria Racho = Lot 1 Block 5
66. Pepito Ramos =
67. Pedro Rebustillo =
68. S. Recato/A. Rebullar =
69. Laura Regidor =
70. Zenaida Santos =
71. R. Sarmiento/H. Eugenio = Lot 1 Block 13
72.
73. R. Valdez/F. Corre =
74. Teodoro Velasco =
75. Edgardo Villanueva = Lots 1 to 5 Block 1
76. Gregorio Yao = Lots 2 & 3 Block 11
77. Willie Atienza =
78. Z. Zacarias/A. Guevarra =
That as concern[ed] complainant LEONARDO/FELICIDAD
ECAT, whose total lost area is deficient by 278 square meters from the 2,587
square meters provided for in the Contract to Sell and that covered by the Deed
of Sale which is 2,309 square meters, for respondents to deliver the deficiency
by the execution of the Deed of Sale on the said portion and the delivery of
the titles on their three (3) lots.
b) submit to the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires
City, Cavite a certified true copy of the approved subdivision plan of CRS Farm
Estate, as well as photocopies of the technical description of complainants’
individual lots, blue prints and tracing cloth: In the event that said
respondents cannot surrender said documents, complainants are hereby ordered to
secure said documents and be the ones to submit them to the Register of Deeds;
c) to refund to complainants the expenses they’ve
incurred in registering their individual Deeds of Sale with the Register of
Deeds of Trece Martires City,
d) pay each of the complainants the sum of P10,000.00[,]
as actual damages; the sum of P15,000.00[,] as moral damages; and the
sum of P20,000.00[,] as exemplary damages;
e) pay complainants the sum of P30,000.00 as
and by way of attorney’s fees;
f) pay to the Board the sum of P20,000.00 as
administrative fine for violation of section 25 of P.D. No. 957 in relation to
sections 38 and 39 of the same decree.
2.) The sale of the subject property in whole to
respondents Caleb Ang and Bennie Cuason is hereby declared annulled and of no
effect especially that which pertains to the portion of the subdivision which
have already been previously sold by the respondent CRS Realty to herein
complainants, prior to the sale made by respondent Cesar Casal to Caleb Ang and
Bennie Cuason. As a consequence thereof, respondents Ang and Cuason are hereby
ordered to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City, Cavite,
the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 669732 in order for the said Register of
Deeds to issue the corresponding certificates of title to all complainants
named herein;
3.) The Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City,
All other claims and counterclaims are hereby
dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[19]
From the decision of the HLURB
Arbiter, respondents Casal, Cuason and Ang, as well as Leticia Ligon, filed
separate petitions for review before the Board of Commissioners (Board).
On
Furthermore, the Board ruled that to
allow petitioners to proceed with the purchases of the subdivision lots would
be preempting the proceedings before the RTC of Bacoor,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered, MODIFYING the Decision dated
1.
The complaint for
quieting of title against Cesar Casal, Bennie Cuason, Caleb Ang, Heirs of
Vitaliano and Enrique Laudiza, and Leticia Ligon is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2.
Ordering CRS
Realty and/or any of the Officers to refund to complainants for all payments
made plus 12% from the time the contract to sell is executed until fully paid.
3.
All other claims
and counterclaims are hereby DISMISSED.
4.
Directing CRS to
pay P10,000.00 as administrative fine for each and every sale without
license.
Let case be referred to the Legal Services Group (LSG)
for possible criminal prosecution against the Officers of CRS Realty and Casal.
SO ORDERED.[21]
Ligon, respondent Casal and herein
petitioners filed separate motions for reconsideration. On
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing:
1. The decision of this Board dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered, MODIFYING the Decision dated
1. The complaint for quieting of title against Cesar
Casal, Bennie Cuason, Caleb Ang, Heirs of Vitaliano and Enrique Laudiza and
Leticia Ligon is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction;
2. CRS Realty and/or any of the officers jointly and
severally is/are ordered to refund to complainants, at the complainant’s
option, all payments made for the purchase of the lots plus 12% interest from
the time the contract to sell is executed until fully paid and cost of
improvement, if any;
3. CRS Realty and/or any of its officers jointly and
severally is/are ordered [to] pay each of the complainants the sum of P30,000.00
as and by way [of] moral damages, P30,000.00 as and by way of exemplary
damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
4. CRS Realty and/or any of its officers is/are hereby
ordered to pay this Board P10,000.00 as administrative fine for each and every
sale executed without license
5. All other claims and counterclaims are hereby
DISMISSED.
Let the case be referred to the Legal
Services Group (LSG) for possible criminal prosecution against the officers of
CRS Realty and Casal.
2. Complainants’ Motion for Reconsideration, save in
so far as we have above given due course, is hereby DISMISSED.
3. Likewise respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration
are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
4. Respondent Bennie Cuason’s Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens is hereby DENIED, the same
being premature.
Let the records be elevated to the Office of the
President in view of the appeal earlier filed by complainants.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Upon appeal, the Office of the
President (OP) on
Before the Court of Appeals, petitioners
argued that the OP erred in rendering a decision which adopted by mere
reference the decision of the HLURB and that the HLURB erred in ruling that it had
no jurisdiction over petitioners’ complaint, in not nullifying the deed of absolute
sale executed between respondent Casal and respondents Cuason and Ang and in ordering
the refund of the amounts paid by petitioners for the subdivision lots.[25]
On
Hence, the instant petition, essentially
praying for judgment ordering the cancellation of the deed of absolute sale
entered between respondent Casal, on the one hand, and respondents Ang and
Cuason, on the other, the delivery of the certificates of title of the
subdivision lots, and the payment of damages to petitioners.
Petitioners have raised the following
issues: (1) whether or not the absence of a license to sell has rendered the
sales void; (2) whether or not the subsequent sale to respondent Cuason and Ang
constitutes double sale; (3) whether or not the HLURB has jurisdiction over
petitioners’ complaint; and (4) whether a minute decision conforms to the
requirement of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution.[28]
We shall resolve the issues in
seriatim.
Petitioners assail the Court of
Appeals’ ruling that the lack of the requisite license to sell on the part of
respondent CRS Realty rendered the sales void; hence, neither party could
compel performance of each other’s contractual obligations.
The only requisite for a contract of
sale or contract to sell to exist in law is the meeting of minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and the price, including the manner the
price is to be paid by the vendee. Under Article 1458 of the New Civil Code, in
a contract of sale, whether absolute or conditional, one of the contracting
parties obliges himself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a determinate
thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its
equivalent.[29]
In the instant case, the failure by
respondent CRS Realty to obtain a license to sell the subdivision lots does not
render the sales void on that ground alone especially that the parties have
impliedly admitted that there was already a meeting of the minds as to the
subject of the sale and price of the contract. The absence of the license to
sell only subjects respondent CRS Realty and its officers civilly and
criminally liable for the said violation under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957[30]
and related rules and regulations. The absence of the license to sell does not
affect the validity of the already perfected contract of sale between
petitioners and respondent CRS Realty.
In Co Chien v. Sta. Lucia Realty
and Development, Inc.,[31]
the Court ruled that the requisite registration and license to sell under P.D.
No. 957 do not affect the validity of the contract between a subdivision seller
and buyer. The Court explained, thus:
A review of the relevant provisions of P.D. [No.] 957
reveals that while the law penalizes the selling subdivision lots and
condominium units without prior issuance of a Certificate of Registration and
License to sell by the HLURB, it does not provide that the absence thereof will
automatically render a contract, otherwise validly entered, void. Xxx
As found by the Court of Appeals, in the case at bar,
the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of P.D. [No.] 957 do not go into the
validity of the contract, such that the absence thereof would automatically
render the contract null and void. It is rather more of an administrative
convenience in order to allow a more effective regulation of the industry. x x x[32]
The second and third issues are
interrelated as they pertain to whether the HLURB has jurisdiction over
petitioners’ complaint for the delivery of certificates of titles and for quieting
of title.
Petitioners are partly correct in asserting
that under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344,[33] an
action for specific performance to compel respondents to comply with their
obligations under the various contracts for the purchase of lots located in the
subdivision owned, developed and/or sold by respondents CRS Realty, Casal and
The HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction
over the complaint for specific performance to compel respondents CRS Realty,
Casal and
Indeed, under Section 25 of P.D. No.
957, among the obligations of a subdivision owner or developer is the delivery
of the subdivision lot to the buyer by causing the transfer of the
corresponding certificate of title over the subject lot.[34]
The provision states:
Sec. 25. Issuance
of Title.—The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit
to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the
registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected
for the issuance of such title. In the
event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the
issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the
mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such
issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured
and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.
In the instant case, the contract to
sell itself expressly obliges the vendor to cause the issuance of the
corresponding certificate of title upon full payment of the purchase price, to
wit:
3. Title to said parcel of land shall remain in the
name of the VENDOR until complete payment of the agreed price by the VENDEE and
all obligations herein stipulated, at which time the VENDOR agrees to cause the
issuance of a certificate of title in the Land Registration Act and the
restrictions as may be provided in this Contract.[35]
From the foregoing it is clear that
upon full payment, the seller is duty-bound to deliver the title of the unit to
the buyer. Thus, for instance, even with
a valid mortgage over the lot, the seller is still bound to redeem said
mortgage without any cost to the buyer apart from the balance of the purchase
price and registration fees.[36]
There is no question that respondents
Casal,
Respondents’ obligation to deliver
the corresponding certificates of title is simultaneous and reciprocal. Upon
the full payment of the purchase price of the subdivision lots, respondents’
obligation to deliver the certificates of title becomes extant. Respondents
must cause the delivery of the certificates of title to petitioners free of any
encumbrance. But since the lots are involved in litigation and there is a
notice of lis pendens at the back of the titles involved, respondents
have to be given a reasonable period of time to work on the adverse claims and
deliver clean titles to petitioners. The Court believes that six (6) months is
a reasonable period for the purpose.
Should respondents fail to deliver
such clean titles at the end of the period, they ought to pay petitioners actual
or compensatory damages. Article 1191 of the Civil Code sanctions the right to
rescind the obligation in the event that specific performance becomes
impossible, to wit:
Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied
in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is
incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment
and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either
case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the
latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless
there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the
rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with
Articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.[38]
Rescission creates the obligation to
return the object of the contract. It can be carried out only when the one who
demands rescission can return whatever he may be obliged to
restore. Rescission abrogates the contract from its inception and requires
a mutual restitution of the benefits received.[39]
Thus, respondents Casal,
Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code,
actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in
recompense for, loss or injury sustained.
They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair
the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted and not to
impose a penalty.[40] Also,
under Article 2200, indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the
value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee
failed to obtain. Thus, there are two kinds of actual or compensatory damages:
one is the loss of what a person already possesses, and the other is the
failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him.[41]
In the event that respondents Casal,
Salvador and CRS Realty cannot deliver clean certificates of title to
petitioners, the latter must be reimbursed not only of the purchase price of
the subdivision lots sold to them but also of the incremental value arising
from the appreciation of the lots. Thus, petitioners are entitled to actual
damages equivalent to the current market value of the subdivision lots.
In Solid Homes, Inc. v. Spouses
Tan,[42] the
Court ordered instead the payment of the current market value of the
subdivision lot after it was established that the subdivision owner could no
longer comply with its obligation to develop the subdivision property in
accordance with the approved plans and advertisements.
On this score, in its Decision dated
28 November 2000 which was affirmed by the OP and the Court of Appeals, the
Board found respondent CRS Realty and its officers solidarily liable to refund
the complainants or herein petitioners the installments paid by them including
interest, to pay them moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and to
pay the corresponding fine to the Board. The decision, however, failed to name
the responsible officers of respondent CRS Realty who should be solidarily
liable petitioners.
The
Obviously, respondents CRS Realty Development
Corporation, Crisanta R. Salvador and Cesar E. Casal, avoided responsibility
and liability for their failure to comply with their contractual and statutory
obligation to deliver the titles to the individual lots of complainants, by
“passing the buck” to each other. The Board[,] however, is not oblivious to the
various schemes willfully employed by developers and owners of subdivision
projects to subtly subvert the law, and evade their obligations to lot buyers,
as it finds the justifications advanced by respondents CRS Realty Development
Corp., Crisanta R. Salvador, and Cesar E. Casal grossly untenable. The failure
in the implementation of the agreement dated 06 September 1998 entered into by
respondent CRS, Salvador and Casal involving the subject property should not
operate and work to prejudice complainants, who are lot buyers in good faith
and who have complied with their obligations by paying in full the price of
their respective lots in accordance with the terms and conditions of their
contract to sell. Respondent Casal is not without recourse against respondents
CRS Realty or
Under the so called “doctrine of estoppel,” where one
of two innocent persons, as respondents CRS Development Corp./Crisanta R.
Salvador and Cesar E. Casal claimed themselves to be, must suffer, he whose
acts occasioned the loss must bear it. In the herein case, it is respondents’
CRS Realty Development Corp./Crisanta Salvador and Cesar E. Casal who must bear
the loss. x x x[43]
In denying any liability, respondent
Salvador argues that even before the filing of the case before the HLURB, the
agreements between her and respondent Casal involving the development and sale
of the subdivision lots were superseded by an agreement dated 30 August 1996,
whereby respondent Casal purportedly assumed full responsibility over the
claims of the subdivision lot buyers while respondent Salvador sold her share
in CRS Realty and relinquished her participation in the business.
The subsequent agreement which
purportedly rescinded the subdivision development agreement between respondents
Casal and Salvador could not affect third persons like herein petitioners because
of the basic civil law principle of relativity of contracts which provides that
contracts can only bind the parties who entered into it, and it cannot favor or
prejudice a third person, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted
with knowledge thereof.[44]
The fact remains that the contracts to sell involving the subdivision lots were
entered into by and between petitioners, as vendees, and respondent
One of the purposes of P.D. No. 957
is to discourage and prevent unscrupulous owners, developers, agents and
sellers from reneging on their obligations and representations to the detriment
of innocent purchasers.[45] The
Court cannot countenance a patent violation on the part of the said respondents
that will cause great prejudice to petitioners. The Court must be vigilant and
should punish, to the fullest extent of the law, those who prey upon the
desperate with empty promises of better lives, only to feed on their
aspirations.[46]
As regards petitioners’ prayer to
declare them the absolute owners of the
subdivision lots, the
HLURB correctly ruled that
it had no
jurisdiction over the same.
Petitioners’ amended complaint[47] included
a cause of action for reconveyance of the subdivision lots to petitioners
and/or the quieting of petitioners’ title thereto and impleaded a different set
of defendants, namely, the Heirs of Laudiza and respondents Ang and Cuason, who
allegedly bought the subdivision lots previously sold to petitioners.
In Spouses Suntay v. Gocolay,[48]
the Court held that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the issue of ownership,
possession or interest in the condominium unit subject of the dispute therein
because under Section 19 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129,[49]
the Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein.
In view of the aforequoted
delineation of jurisdiction between the HLURB and the RTCs, the HLURB has no
jurisdiction to declare petitioners as absolute owners of the subdivision lots
as against the Heirs of Laudiza who filed an action for reconveyance against
respondent Casal, which is still pending before the RTC.
However, nothing prevents the HLURB
from adjudicating on the issue of whether the alleged subsequent sale of the
subdivision lots to respondents Ang and Cuason constituted a double sale
because the issue is intimately related to petitioners’ complaint to compel
respondents CRS Realty, Casal and
In Union Bank of the Philippines
v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,[51]
the Court upheld HLURB’s jurisdiction over a condominium unit buyer’s complaint
to annul the certificate of title over the unit issued to the highest bidder in
the foreclosure of the mortgage constituted on the unit by the condominium
developer without the consent of the buyer.
The remand of the instant case to the
HLURB is in order so that the HLURB may determine if the alleged subsequent
sale to respondents Ang and Cuason of those lots initially sold to petitioners constituted
a double sale and was tainted with fraud as opposed to the respondents’ claim
that only the unsold portions of the subdivision property were sold to them.
One final note. Contrary to
petitioners’ contention, the decision of the OP does not violate the mandate of
Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, which provides that “No decision
shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
The OP decision ruled that “the
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the office a quo are amply
supported by substantial evidence” and that it is “bound by said findings of
facts and conclusions of law and hereby adopt(s) the assailed resolution by
reference.”
The Court finds these legal bases in
conformity with the requirements of the Constitution. The Court has sanctioned the use of
memorandum decisions, a species of succinctly written decisions by appellate
courts in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, B.P. Blg. 129 on the
grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience and docket status of our
courts. The Court has declared that
memorandum decisions comply with the constitutional mandate.[52]
As already discussed, the Court
affirms the ruling of the HLURB Arbiter insofar as it ordered respondents
Casal, Salvador and CRS Realty, jointly and severally, to cause the delivery of
clean certificates of title to petitioners at no cost to the latter. Said respondents
have six months from the finality of this decision to comply with this
directive, failing which they shall pay petitioners actual damages equivalent
to the current market value of the subdivision lots sold to them, as determined
by the HLURB.
However, the Court finds in order and
accordingly affirms the Board’s award of moral and exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees in favor of each petitioner, as well as the imposition of administrative
fine, against respondents Casal,
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 81859, which upheld the decisions of the Office of the
President and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, are AFFIRMED in all respects except for the
following MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
(1) Respondents CRS Realty,
Cesar E. Casal and Crisanta R. Salvador are ORDERED to secure and deliver to each of petitioners the
corresponding certificates of titles, free of any encumbrance, in this names
for the lots they respectively purchased and fully paid for, within six (6)
months from the finality of this Decision and, in case of default, jointly and
severally to pay petitioners the prevailing or current fair market value of the
lots as determined by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board; and
(2) Without prejudice to
the implementation of the other reliefs granted in this Decision, including the
reliefs awarded by the HLURB which are affirmed in this Decision, this case is REMANDED to the HLURB for the purpose
of determining (a) the prevailing or current fair market value of the lots and
(b) the validity of the subsequent sale of the lots to respondents Bennie
Cuason and Caleb Ang by ascertaining whether or not the sale was attended with
fraud and executed in bad faith. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*Acting Chairperson in lieu of Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, who is on official leave, per Special Order No. 618.
[2]Dated
[25]
[30]Entitled, “Regulating the
[33]P.D. No. 1344, Sec. 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases of the following nature:
a. Unsound real estate business practices;
b. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and
c. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
[47]Rollo, pp. 66-68; The essential averments in the amended complaint read:
7. Very recently, Complainants learned that the subdivided lots which they respectively purchased from respondents Cesar Casal, CRS Realty Development Corporation and/or Crisanta Salvador, for which they have fully paid after years of religiously paying the monthly amortizations, were sold by respondent Cesar Casal with the consent of his wife Pilar Paular Casal to Respondents Bennie Cuason and Caleb Ang as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale, a copy of which is hereto attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “E.”
8. By
reason of said sale, the Register of Deeds for
9. The aforesaid sale by Casal to Cuason and Ang is part of the grand scheme of Respondents to deprive Complainants of their rights, ownership, title and possession over the subdivided lots which they respectively purchased from Respondents Cesar Casal, CRS Realty Development Corporation and/or Cristina Salvador and for which they have paid in full.
10. Respondents Bennie Cuason and Caleb Ang were fully aware that the land which they purchased from Cesar Casal was already sold to herein Complainants and, therefore, they are purchasers in bad faith. x x x
11. There is, therefore, a legal need to annul and declare without any force and effect the Deed of Absolute Sale (Annex E) and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 669732 (Annex “F”) and to reconvey the property described therein to Complainants.
12. At the time Complainants and Respondents Cesar Casal and/or CRS Realty Development Corporation and/or Crisanta Salvador signed their respective Contracts to Sell, and during all the time the Complainants were paying their monthly amortizations up to the time the corresponding Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed in favor of Complainants, the latter were assured by said Respondents that the lots they purchased were free from any lien or encumbrances.
13. Sometime after Respondent Cesar Casal and/or CRS Realty Development Corporation and/or Cristina Salvador executed the corresponding Deeds of Absolute Sale of the subdivided lots in favor of Complainants, the latter learned that the “Heirs of Laudiza” and respondent Leticia Ligon, in violation of P.D. No. 957 and as part of all respondents grand design to defraud Complainants to deprive them of the rights, ownership title and possession of the subdivision lots they respectively purchased had started asserting their purported claims of ownership against Casal and herein Complainants involving the same subdivided parcels of land thereby casting a cloud on the legality and validity of their titles, ownership and right thereto.
14. There is, therefore, a need to once and for all remove the cloud on and quiet title to the subdivided lots purchased by complainants, by declaring the latter to be the lawful and valid owners of the property they respectively purchased from CRS Realty Development Corporation and/or Cesar Casal and/or Crisanta Salvador under P.D. No. 957 to the exclusion of the entire world, including all the herein respondents.
[49]SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) x x x
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of yards or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
[50]SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
a. Unsound real estate business practices;
b. Claims involving refund of any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman; and
c. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivisions lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman.