G.R. No. 95364 - JUNE 1992 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 95364June 29, 1992 Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Housing And Land Use Regulatory Board, et al. G.R. No. 93983June 29, 1992 Davao Integrated Port And Stevedoring Services vs. Alfredo C. Olvida, et al. G.R. No. 93045June 29, 1992 Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97463June 26, 1992 Jesus M. Ibonilla vs. Cebu State College of Science & Technology G.R. No. 97430June 26, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Gomer P. Mendoza G.R. No. 96674June 26, 1992 Rural Bank of Salinas Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96525June 26, 1992 Mercury Drug Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 96318June 26, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo L. Abelita G.R. No. 96271June 26, 1992 Nativiada Villostas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96132June 26, 1992 Oriel Magno vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95542June 26, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Del Mar, et al. G. R. No. 94422June 26, 1992 Guillermo Marcelino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94279June 26, 1992 Rafael G. Palma vs. Nlrc G.R. No. 93941June 26, 1992 Niceforo S. Agaton vs. Court of Apppeals G.R. No. 92276June 26, 1992 Rebecco E. Panlilio vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 88392June 26, 1992 Manuel Angelo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. NO. 82263June 26,1992 The People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto T. Yabut G.R. No. L-62634June 26, 1992 Adolfo Caubang vs. People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. L-56465-66June 26, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Galendez G.R. No. L-56169June 26, 1992 Travel-On, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 88957June 25, 1992 Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-62999June 25, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Arcadio Cabilao G.R. No. 99287June 23, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Martin S. Villarama, Jr. G.R. No. 96444June 23, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Leandro F. Pajares G.R. No. 97917June 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Dacquel G.R. No. 94531June 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Bacalso G.R. No. 94298June 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin P. Madrid G.R. No. 93064June 22, 1992 Agustina G. Gayatao vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 87059June 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio T. Mengote G.R. Nos. 72786-88June 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Telio G.R. No. L-66020June 22, 1992 Flavio De Leon vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-95630June 18, 1992 Leopoldo Veroy vs. William L. Layague G.R. No. 96296June 18, 1992 Rafael S. Dizon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 94309June 18, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rene Paciente G.R. No. 92279June 18, 1992 Edmundo C. Sambeli, et al. vs. Province of Isabela, et al. G.R. No. L-58327June 18, 1992 Jesus C. Balmadrid vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 96160June 17, 1992 Stelco Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96928June 16, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Gonzales G.R. No. 87678June 16, 1992 Del Bros Hotel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 87584June 16, 1992 Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Gloria E. Chatto G.R. No. 85043June 16, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Glenn Hatton G.R. No. L-95231June 15, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Danilo C. Dimaano, Et.,Al. G.R. No. 93712June 15, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro B. William, Et.,Al. G.R.. No. 92850June 15, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Angeles G.R. No. 88402June 15, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Johnpet C. Macalino Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-90-383June 15, 1992 Venustiano Saburnido vs. Judge Florante Madrono G.R. No. 88705June 11, 1992 Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. NO. 83929June 11, 1992 Antonio Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94457June 10, 1992 Victoria Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 100178June 9, 1992 Jaime Espanola vs. Civil Service Commission, National Printing Office, Office of the Press Secretary and Efren Camacho, G.R. No. 99336June 9, 1992 Melanio S. Torio vs. Civil Service Commission, National Printing Office, Office of the Press Secretary and Efren Camacho, G.R. No. 95229June 9, 1992 Corito Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 91757June 9, 1992 Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G. R. No. 91378June 9, 1992 First Malayan Leasing And Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 90359June 9, 1992 Johannes Riesenbeck vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 90311June 9, 1992 Hi Cement Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 89452June 9, 1992 Eduardo V. Bentain vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 88498June 9, 1992 Generoso R. Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 74193-94June 9, 1992 San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-69073June 9, 1992 Alfredo Botulan, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 97020June 8, 1992 California Manufacturing Corp. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma G.R. No. 95903-05June 8, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Lucille Sendon G.R. No. 88938June 8, 1992 La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-62391June 8, 1992 Safiro Catalan vs. Tito F. Genilo G.R. No. L-59738June 8, 1992 People of the Phils. vs. Doroteo Baslot, et al. A.M. No. 1769June 8, 1992 Cesar L. Lantoria vs. Irineo L. Bunyi G.R. No. 85044June 3, 1992 Macario Tamargo, et al, vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-67279June 3, 1992 Vicente Ibay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 88268June 2, 1992 San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 84433June 2, 1992 Alexander Reyes vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano et al. G.R. No. 80436June 2, 1992 People of the Phils. vs. Isagani Bolasa The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Housing And Land Use Regulatory Board, et al. Davao Integrated Port And Stevedoring Services vs. Alfredo C. Olvida, et al. Dr. Jose Sison vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jesus M. Ibonilla vs. Cebu State College of Science & Technology People of the Philippines vs. Gomer P. Mendoza Rural Bank of Salinas Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Mercury Drug Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo L. Abelita Nativiada Villostas vs. Court of Appeals Oriel Magno vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Teresita Del Mar, et al. Guillermo Marcelino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rafael G. Palma vs. Nlrc Niceforo S. Agaton vs. Court of Apppeals Rebecco E. Panlilio vs. Sandiganbayan Manuel Angelo vs. Court of Appeals The People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto T. Yabut Adolfo Caubang vs. People of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Galendez Travel-On, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Philips Industrial Development, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission People of the Philippines vs. Arcadio Cabilao People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Martin S. Villarama, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Leandro F. Pajares People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Dacquel People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Bacalso People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin P. Madrid Agustina G. Gayatao vs. Civil Service Commission People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio T. Mengote People of the Philippines vs. Florencio Telio Flavio De Leon vs. People of the Philippines Leopoldo Veroy vs. William L. Layague Rafael S. Dizon vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Rene Paciente Edmundo C. Sambeli, et al. vs. Province of Isabela, et al. Jesus C. Balmadrid vs. Sandiganbayan Stelco Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Gonzales Del Bros Hotel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Gotesco Investment Corporation vs. Gloria E. Chatto People of the Philippines vs. Glenn Hatton People of the Philippines vs. Danilo C. Dimaano, Et.,Al. People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro B. William, Et.,Al. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Angeles People of the Philippines vs. Johnpet C. Macalino Venustiano Saburnido vs. Judge Florante Madrono Joy Mart Consolidated Corp. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. Antonio Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Victoria Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jaime Espanola vs. Civil Service Commission, National Printing Office, Office of the Press Secretary and Efren Camacho, Melanio S. Torio vs. Civil Service Commission, National Printing Office, Office of the Press Secretary and Efren Camacho, Corito Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals Nueva Ecija III Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. First Malayan Leasing And Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Johannes Riesenbeck vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Hi Cement Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Commission Eduardo V. Bentain vs. Court of Appeals Generoso R. Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Alfredo Botulan, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission California Manufacturing Corp. vs. Bienvenido E. Laguesma People of the Philippines vs. Lucille Sendon La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Safiro Catalan vs. Tito F. Genilo People of the Phils. vs. Doroteo Baslot, et al. Cesar L. Lantoria vs. Irineo L. Bunyi Macario Tamargo, et al, vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Vicente Ibay vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Alexander Reyes vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano et al. People of the Phils. vs. Isagani Bolasa The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 95364 June 29, 1992
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, MARTHA S. DAVID and TERESITA T. QUAZON, assisted by her husband, ALFONSO MARIA QUAZON,respondents.
GRIÑO-AQUINO,J.:
The issue presented by this petition forcertiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction is whether or not the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for brevity) has jurisdiction to hear and decide a condominium buyer's complaint for:
(a) annulment or a real estate mortgage constituted by the project owner without his consent and without the prior written consent of the National Housing Authority:
(b) for annulment of the foreclosure sale; and
(c) for annulment of the condominium certificate of title that was issued to the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale.
In 1973, Martha David purchased from Fereit Realty Development Corporation (FRDC) a condominium unit, Lorraine Flat 552, which was in the process of completion, with parking space No. S-12, in the condominium project known as "Europa Condominium Villas" in Baguio City.
The agreed purchase price was P217,000. Martha David made a 20% downpayment of P43,400 on the price leaving a balance of P173,600 (including interest of 1% per month) which was payable in 60 equal monthly installments of P3,861.64 per installment.
In 1975, Martha David took possession, as owner, of the condominium unit, with notice to the management. As of October, 1976, she had paid at least twenty-two (22) monthly installments of the price of the condominium unit.
On January 2, 1978, FRDC, without the knowledge of the condominium buyer David, and without the prior approval of the National Housing Authority, mortgaged the condominium project to Bancom Development Corporation (Bancom), predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP), as security for a loan of P40,000,000 (pp. 58-59,Rollo).
As FRDC failed to pay its obligation which, as computed by Bancom, amounted to P42,075,134.84 as of June 30, 1979, Bancom foreclosed the mortgage on 45 condominium units including the unit of Martha David.
On March 4, 1980, the Sheriff executed a Certificate of Sale to Bancom and the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) as the highest bidder for the total price of P19,324,000. After the expiration of the redemption period, UBP held out the units for sale (pp. 58-59,Rollo)
On June 26, 1989, Martha David and Teresita Quazon, the latter assisted by her husband, Alfonso Maria Quazon, who had in the meantime, purchased Martha David's unit, filed a complaint in the HLURB, against FRDC, UBP and FEBTC to annul the title of UBP and FEBTC over David's condominium unit and to order the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of Teresita Quazon. The complaint sought the following reliefs:
a. Upon the filing of this complaint an order be issued allowing the complainants to deposit on consignation the amount of P200,000.00 (to be deposited by and/or in the name of Teresita T. Quazon) to be paid to respondents Union Bank and Far East Bank according to their respective interests:
b. After hearing judgment be rendered —
i. considering complainants to have fully paid the total purchase price of the condominium unit originally purchased by the complainant David and assigned and/or sold to complainant Quazon;
ii. ordering the cancellation of Condominium Certificate of Title No. 1117 in the name of Union bank and Far East Bank; and
iii. ordering the issuance of a new Condominium Certificate of Title over, the same condominium unit covered by CCT No. 1117 in the name of complainant Teresita T. Quazon as the assignee of the unit from complainant David.
Complainant further pray for such other reliefs as maybe deemed just and proper in the premises. (pp. 20-21,Rollo)
On July 17, 1989, UBP and FEBTC filed their answer questioning the HLURB's jurisdiction over the case. UBP filed a motion to dismiss on the same ground.
In an Order dated August 27, 1990, HLURB Arbiter, Cesar Manuel denied the motion of UBP, on the ground that the "motion will render nugatory the summary nature of proceedings before this Office" (Annex D, p. 40,Rollo). HLURB ordered the parties to file their respective position papers within fifteen (15) days and thereafter the case would be deemed submitted for resolution.
In due time, this petition forcertiorariand prohibition with injunction was filed by UBP.
UBP's main argument is that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the complaint for consignation which should have been filed in the regular trial courts. Furthermore, as the HLURB was created in 1981 (E.O. No. 641), it has no jurisdiction over contracts that took effect prior to 1981.
Those arguments deserve scant consideration. The issue in HLURB Case No. REM-062689-4077 is the validity of the real estate mortgage of David's condominium unit that FRDC executed in Favor of the Union Bank and Far East Bank without prior approval of the National Housing Authority and legality of the title which the mortgagee banks acquired as highest bidder, therefore in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The applicable provisions of P.D. No. 957 otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree" are quoted hereunder as follows:
Sec. 3. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. — The National Housing Authority shall haveexclusive jurisdictionto regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this decree. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 18.MORTGAGES. — No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developerwithout prior written approval of the Authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project andeffective measureshave been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by the mortgage shall be determined and thebuyerthereof, if any, shall benotified before the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option pay his installment for the lot or unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment thereof.
P.D. No. 1344 of April 2, 1978 expanded the jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority (NHA) to include the following:
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 haveexclusive jurisdictionto hear and decide cases of the following nature:
A.Unsound real estate business practices:
B. Claims involving refund andany other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyeragainst the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman; and
C. Cases involvingspecific performanceof contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman. (VLD Vol. 52, pp. 51-52.)
On February 7, 1981, Executive Order No. 648 transferred the regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA to Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 8. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS. — The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority pursuant to Presidential Decrees No. 957, 1216, 1344 and other related laws are hereby transferred to the Commission together with such applicable personnel, appropriation, records, equipment and property necessary for the enforcement and implementation of such functions. Among these regulatory functions are:
1. Regulation of the real estate trade and business;
2. Registration of subdivision lots and condominium projects;
3. Issuance of license to sell subdivision lots and condominium units in the registered units;
4. Approval of performance bond and the suspension of license to sell;
5. Registration of dealers, brokers, and salesmen engaged in the business of selling subdivision lots or condominium units;
6. Revocation of registration of dealers, brokers and salesman;
7. Approval of mortgage on any subdivision lot or condominium unit made by the owner or developer;
8. Granting of permits for the alteration of plans and the extension of period for completion of subdivision or condominium projects;
9. Approval of the conversion to other purposes of roads and open spaces found within the project which have been donated to the city or municipality concerned;
10. Regulation of the relationship between lessors and lessees; and
11. Hear and decide cases on unsound real estate business practices; claims involving refund filed against project owners, developers, dealers, brokers or salesmen and cases of specific performance. (VLD Vol. 81, pp. 108-109.)
Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986 changed the name of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission to "Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Clearly, FRDC's act of mortgaging the condominium project to Bancom and FEBTC, without the knowledge and consent of David as buyer of a unit therein, and without the approval of the NHA (now HLURB) as required by P.D. No. 957, was not only an unsound real estate business practice but also highly prejudicial to the buyer. David, who has a cause of action for annulment of the mortgage, the mortgage foreclosure sale and the condominium certificate of title that was issued to the UBP and FEBTC as highest bidders at the sale. The case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NHA (now HLURB) as provided in P.D. No. 957 of 1976 and P.D. No. 1344 of 1978.
The allegations of UBP that the contract between FRDC and David had been rescinded that the installment payments made by David had been forfeited, that it is FRDC who should refund the said installment payments to David are mere matters of defense which are not proper in a petition forcertiorari(Planters Products Inc. vs. CA, 193 SCRA 563: Commercial Corp. vs. PNB 175 SCRA 1).
InSolid Homes Inc. vs. Payawal, 177 SCRA 72, we struck down the exercise of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City over a lot buyer's complaint for delivery of title against the subdivision owner.
InAntipolo Realty Corporation vs. NHA, 153 SCRA 399, this Court, citing PD Nos. 957 and 1344, upheld the jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority to determine the rights of the parties under the contract to sell a subdivision lot.
In the more recent case ofCT Torres Enterprises vs. Hibionada, 191 SCRA 268, we affirmed the HLURB's jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint for specific performance of the seller's obligation to deliver the title of a subdivision lot to the buyer, with damages.
We hold that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for specific performance of the sale, or annulment of the mortgage, of a condominium unit, with damages.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED with costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.