Premises considered, it appearing that respondent had sold subdivision lots within the Opaco Lophcal Subdivision project without securing the necessary license to sell as required in Section 4 & 5 of P.D. 957, and it appearing further that respondent had failed to develop the subdivision despite repeated demands thereof(r) by complainants, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent (1) to cease and desist from selling or offering to sell the remaining unsold lots in Opaco Lophcal Subdivision until such time as she shall have duly registered the subdivision project and secured the requisite license to sell pursuant to Section 4 & 5 of P.D. 957; (2) to develop the subdivision within four (4) months from receipt of this decision and to submit to this Commission, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, a timetable to undertake said development and, thereafter, a progress report every end of the month or as often as this Commission may require.
An administrative fine of P5,000.00 is hereby imposed upon respondent for violation of Section 4, 5 and 20 of P.D. 957.
Failure to comply with this decision shall constrain this Commission to forward the records of this case to the Task Force on Subdivision, Ministry of Justice, for the filing of appropriate charges against respondent Clemencia Calara for violation of P.D. 957.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all parties concerned.
It is SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, and on a finding that plaintiff and her children have been unlawfully deprived of possession of the subject lot they own, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff CLEMENCIA F. CALARA, and her children. CONCEPCION, ELENITA, ISIDRO, CARLOSA, BERNARDO", DORIS CLADIOLOSA and LOPCHAL, all surnamed CALARA, and as against defendants TERESITA FRANCISCO and JESUS FRANCISCO, and ordering.
- Said defendants TERESITA FRANCISCO and JESUS FRANCISCO and all those acting in their behalves, or claiming rights under them, to completely vacate the parcel of residential lot identified as Lot No. 4-A-4-9-20-D-5-A, containing 278 square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Tide No. T-52242. registered in the name of plaintiffs, and which lot is identified as Lot 23 in the original subdivision plan of LOPHCAL (CALARA) SUBDIVISION, located at Brgy. Anos, Los Banos, Laguna, and forthwith to turn over and surrender possession of the same to said plaintiff and her children;
- Said defendants, and all persons claiming rights under them, to remove and demolish any and all houses, structures erected, built, or constructed by them, or existing, over the said described property, without right of reimbursement, forthwith upon receipt of a copy of this Judgment;
- Said defendants to jointly and severally pay said plaintiffs) damages representing the reasonable rental compensation or value for the use and occupancy of the lot belonging to plaintiffs and children, in the total sum of P188,771.28 corresponding to the period from April 1, 1979 up to October 31, 1999 and the sum of P1,800.00 a month, corresponding to reasonable rental thenceforth with twenty 20% percent increase per annum, up to and until said defendants fully vacate the property of the plaintiffs, with all accrued and unpaid amounts to bear interest at 6% from date of first demand and/or date when they had/should have first accrued and until fully paid;
- Said defendants to pay said plaintiffs the sum of P60,000.00, for and as attorney's fee:
- Said defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 representing litigation costs.
The counterclaims interposed by defendants against plaintiffs is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.18
The action is not a simple case for unlawful detainer. The complaint focuses on [respondents'] refusal to execute the Contract to Sell and to pay the monthly installments for Lot 23 in Lophcal Subdivision.
[Respondents] claimed that they were within their rights, as provided by P.D. 957, to stop paying the monthly amortizations since the [petitioners] failed to develop the subdivision. The issue, therefore, involves the rights and obligations of parties to a sale of real property, as regulated by P.D. 957.
When a complaint for unlawful detainer arises from the failure of a buyer on installment basis of real property to pay based on a right to stop paying monthly amortizations under PD 957, the determinative question is exclusively cognizable by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Therefore, the question of the right to collect the monthly amortization must be determined by said agency (Francel Really Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 129).
Section 3 of PD 957, provides:'The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this Decree."
In Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986, the exclusive jurisdiction of National Housing Authority (NHA) over the above case was transferred to the HLURB.
x x x x
Where the law confines in an administrative office quasi-judicial functions, the jurisdiction of such office shall prevail over the court. Thus, the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is lodged with an administrative tribunal of special competence and when a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered (Brett vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 687; Roxas and Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106).
The MTC having no jurisdiction to entertain the case, it is also without jurisdiction to award damages to [petitioners]."23
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB) HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A PERFECTED CONTRACT TO SELL BETWEEN PETITIONER CALARA AND RESPONDENTS FRANCISCO25
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING THE ISSUE ON WHETHER RESPONDENTS FRANCISCO HAVE STILL LEGAL PERSONALITY TO PURSUE THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN SPITE OF THE SEVERAL LAPSES THEY HAD COMMITTED BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTII.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT/UNLAWFUL DETAINER FILED BY PETITIONER CLEMENCIA CALARA AGAINST RESPONDENTS TERESITA AND JESUS FRANCISCOIII.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN STATING THAT RESPONDENTS FRANCISCO HAD BOUGHT THE SUBJECT LOT FROM PETITIONER CALARAIV.
"Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment, how to stay the same, - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay the- execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.
All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said court or authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by agreement of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion to withdraw, or for justifiable grounds, shall decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from time to lime during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff and upon proof of such failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on the merits."33
x x x x
Petitioner's complaint is for unlawful detainer. While generally speaking such action falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC, the determination of the ground for ejectment requires a consideration of the rights of a buyer on installment basis of real property. Indeed private respondent claims that he has a right under P.D. No. 957, § 23 to stop paying monthly amortizations after giving due notice to the owner or developer of his decision to do so because of petitioner's alleged failure to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time for complying with the same. The case thus involves a determination of the rights and obligations of parties in a sale of real estate under P.D. No. 957. Private respondent has in fact filed a complaint against petitioner for unsound real estate business practice with the HLURB.
This is, therefore, not a simple case for unlawful detainer arising from the failure of the lessee to pay the rents, comply with the conditions of a lease agreement or vacate the premises after the expiration of the lease. Since the determinative question is exclusively cognizable by the HLURB, the question of the right of petitioner must be determined by the agency.
Petitioner's cause of action against private respondent should instead be filed as a counterclaim in HLURB Case No. REM-07-9004-80 in accordance with Rule 6, § 6 of the Rules of Court which is of suppletory application to the 1.987 HLURB Rules of Procedure per § 3 of the same. In the case of Estate Developers and Investors Corporation v. Antonio Sarte and Erlinda Sarte the developer filed a complaint to collect the balance of the price of a lot bought on installment basis, but its complaint was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction. It appealed the order to this Court. In dismissing the appeal, we held:The action here is not a simple action to collect on a promissory note; it is a complaint to collect amortization payments arising from or in connection with a sale of a subdivision lot under PD. Nos. 957 and 1344, and accordingly falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade and industry, and to hear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices. Although the case involving Antonio Sarte is still pending resolution before the HLURB Arbiter, and there is as yet no order from the HLURB authorizing suspension of payments on account of the failure of plaintiff developer to make good its warranties, there is no question to Our mind that the matter of collecting amortizations for the sale of the subdivision lot is necessarily tied up to the complaint against the plaintiff and it affects the rights and correlative duties of the buyer of a subdivision lot as regulated by NHA pursuant to P.D. 957 as amended. It must accordingly fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the said Board, and We find that the motion to dismiss was properly granted on the ground that the regular court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint."
The ocular inspection of the subject subdivision conducted by this Commission on 16 August 1982 confirmed complainants' allegations of non-development. It is, however, imperative that the issue on whether or not (the) subject subdivision is covered by P.D. 957 be resolved.
Section 2, paragraph (d) of P.D. 957 defines 'Subdivision Project' as a tract or a parcel of land registered under Act No. 496 which is partitioned primarily for residential purposes into individual lots with or without improvements thereon and offered to the public for sale, in cash or in installment terms. It shall include all residential, commercial, industrial and recreational areas, as well as open spaces, and other community and public areas in the project.'
It has been established from the evidence presented that all the elements of a subdivision project are present in this case. The land involved which is located at Bo. Anos, Los Banos. Laguna had been subdivided into 44 individual lots evidently for residential purposes as evidenced by the photocopy of the development plan of the said subdivision. Also, there had been an offering of the individual lots to the public for sale in installment basis as shown by the contract of sale executed by respondent in favor of complainants herein. Moreover, the lots, as contained in the contracts to sell, are registered under Act 496.
The foregoing circumstances clearly show that the land involved is a subdivision project the operation of which is subject to supervision and regulation by this Commission.42
"Mangyari na sumulat uli ako sa iyo tungkol sa pagtanggi mong sumang-ayon at lumagda sa Kasunduan sa Pagbibil(i) ng Lote sa kabila ng iyong pakiusap mo noon sa akin na magpapagawa ka muna ng bahay bago ka lalagda sa sinasabing kasunduan. Sa hindi malamang dahilan ng matapos na ang iyong ipinagagawang bahay at kasunod na rin dito ang pag-aakupa ninyo nilo, ay bigla ka na lang tnmangging lumagda sa kasunduan at kasunod na rin ang pagtanggi mong magbayad ng kaukuiang buwanang-hulog sa ninanais mong bilihing lote,
Sa pagkakataong ito ay muli kong ipina-aalala sa iyo na simula't mula pa ay alam mo na babayaran mo ang hinahangad mong bilihing lote sa paraang buwanang hulugan (equal monthly installment) sa halagang P361.00 sa hob ng anim na pung (60) buwan pagkatapos na mabayaran ang kaukuiang labin limang (15%) por ciento ng kabuoang halaga ng lote bilang unang bayad o downpayment.
Dahil sa hindi mo pagtupad ng iyong tungkulin sa amin ay ikinalulungkot kong ipa-alam sa inyo na alisin mo ang iyong bahay sa lupang tinitirikan nito sa loob ng tatlumpung (30) araw pasimula sa pagkatanggap mo ng liham na ito, at gayon din ay umalis kayo at iwanan ang sinasabing lot ang walang pasubali."62
Endnotes:
1 Records, CA-G.R. SP No. 61243, pp. 454-460.
2 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. I, pp. 11-12.
3 The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree.
4 Rollo, p. 125.
5 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. I, pp. 194-196.
6Id. at 1-6.
7 Id. at 25.
8 Id. at 102-107.
9 Id. at 35-39.
10 The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
11 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. I, pp. 40-46.
12 Id. at 72-74.
13 Id. at 74.
14 Id. at 57.
15 Id. at 58-63.
16 Id. at 112-116.
17 Id. at 326-342.
18 Id. at 342.
19 Id. at 487-492.
20 Records, Civil Case No. 993. Vol. II, p. 54.
21 Records, CA-G.R. No. 61243, pp. 447-448.
22 Id. at 454-460.
23 Id. at 458-459.
24 Id. at 5 19-520.
25 Rollo, p 7.
26 Id. at 7-10; 261-264.
27 Id. at 61-63.
28 Caltex (Philippines) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97753, 10 August 1992. 212 SCRA 448, 462.
29 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. I, at 341.
30 Almoceravs. Ong. G.R. No. 170479, 18 February 2008, 546 SCRA 164, 178.
31 San Pedro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114300. 4 August 1994,235 SCRA 145, 148.
32 Candida vs. Camacho, 424 Phil. 291, 300 (2002).
33 Italics supplied.
34 Tubiano v. Razo, 390 Phil. 863, 868 (2000).
35 Corpuz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117005. 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 275, 279.
36 Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of a contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person may at anytime within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.
37 Sudaria v. Quiambao, G.R. No. 164305, 20 November 2007, 537 SCRA 689, 696.
38 Larano v. Calendacion, G.R. No. 158231, 19 June 2007, 525 SCRA 57, 65.
39 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. 1, pp. 1-6; 102-107.
40 322 Phil. 138 (1996).
41 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. I, pp. 194-196.
42 Id. at 73.
43 Executive Order No. 90.
44 Section 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 salesmen; (7) Approval or 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.
45 REORGANIZING THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION.
46 Badillo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 13 1903. 26 June 2008, 555 SCRA 435. 448. citing Peña vs. GSIS, 502 SCRA 383, 402.
47 Rollo, pp. 203-205.
48 439 Phil. 966 (2002).
49 G.R. No. 158840, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 617.
50 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.
51 EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957, 2 April 1978.
52 Supra note 40.
53 Rollo, pp. 13-16.
54 Supra note 7.
55 Rollo, pp. 114-123.
56 Id. at 124.
57 Amado v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171401, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 161, 173.
58 Spouses Castillo v. Spouses Reyes, G.R. No. 170917. 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 193. 197.
59 Records, Civil Case No. 993, Vol. 1, p. 102.
60 Id. at 76-79, Exhibits "2" to "11".
61 Id. at 7, Exhibit "A".
62 Italics supplied.
63 Art. 1356, Civil Code of the Philippines.
64 ART. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special forms, as in the acts of contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
65 ART. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein arc governed by articles 1403, Mo. 2 and 1405.
x x x x.
66 G.R. No. 154684, 8 September 2005, 469 SCRA 424, 435.
67 Estrella v. Robles, Jr., G.R. No. 171029, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 60. 69.
68 Badillo v. Court of Appeals, supra note 46 at 444.