SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 211301, November 27, 2019
PARK DEVELOPERS INCORPORATED, REYNALDO JESUS B. PASCO, SR., ROLANDO GOLLA, NENITA B. PASCO, JULITO CAPARAS, TERESA CAPARAS AND CONSTANCIO BERNARDO, PETITIONERS, v. ELIZABETH D. DACLAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before this Court is a for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated August 12, 2013 and Resolution3 dated February 10, 2014 in CA-G.R. CV No. 97454. The assailed Decision dismissed, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of Rules of Court, the appeal filed by Park Developers, Inc. (PDI), Reynaldo Jesus B. Pasco, Sr., Rolando Golla, Nenita B. Pasco, Julito Caparas, Teresa Caparas, and Constancio Bernardo (petitioners) from the Decision4 dated March 31, 2011 of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City in Civil Case No. 70647. The assailed Resolution, on the other hand, denied for lack of merit petitioners' subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
On September 24, 2003, [respondent] Elizabeth D. Daclan, through a document denominated as Application for Continual Use, purchased from [petitioner] Park Developers Incorporated ("PDI" for brevity) a family estate memorial lot located at Sanctuary Memorial Park ("Sanctuary" for brevity), Barangay Timalan, Naic, Cavite. The total contract price is P708,000.00, payable in thirty-six monthly installments. At the time of the institution of the instant case, [respondent] had already paid PDI a total amount of P457,760.74.On March 31, 2011, the RTC rendered judgment against [petitioners], disposing as follows:
However, sometime in 2005, [respondent] learned that, as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), it had never issued any Certificate of Registration or License to Sell in favor of PDI. Thus, on January 13, 2006, [respondent] filed the instant case [for Annulment of Contract with Damages] against PDI and its corporate officers, Reynaldo Jesus B. Pasco, Sr., Rolando G. Golla, Nenita B. Pasco, Julito P. Caparas, Teresa B. Caparas, and Constancio R. Bernardo.
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolved as follows, to wit:Unsatisfied with the RTC's ruling, petitioners interposed an appeal in accordance with Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which was given due course in the RTC Order6 dated July 11, 2011.
a. Annulling the agreement denominated as 'application for continual use' entered into between [respondent] and [petitioners] and ordering the latter, jointly and solidarily, to return to the [respondent] all payments made by her in the total amount of Four Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty and 74/100 (Php457,760.74), plus legal interest computed from the time [petitioners] failed to return said amount despite valid demand;
b. Ordering [petitioners], jointly and solidarily, to pay [respondent] moral damage in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00);
c. Ordering [petitioners], jointly and solidarily, to pay [respondent] Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) exemplary damages;
d. Ordering [petitioners], jointly and solidarily, to pay attorney's fees in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00).
On the other hand, compulsory counterclaim of [respondent] is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."5 (Citations omitted.)
THE LOWER COURT PATENTLY ERRED IN RENDERING THE APPEALED DECISION DESPITE LACK OF JURISDICTION.8According to petitioners, it is the HLURB and not the RTC which has primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case filed by respondent.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 50, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.11 In the assailed February 10, 2014, Resolution,12 the CA denied their motion.
SO ORDERED.10
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. -Thus, this Court finds that the CA did not err in dismissing petitioners' appeal. Since what petitioners raised in their appeal was a pure question of law, their proper recourse was to file before this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.17In fact, the CA's dismissal of petitioners' appeal was the only proper and unavoidable outcome as Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.x x x
(c) Appeal by certiorari. - In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. - An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.Notwithstanding the absence of error on the part of the CA in dismissing petitioners' appeal, this Court finds it imperative to resolve the substantive issue of the instant case in order to render a just and speedy disposition thereof. As held in Ong Lim Sing, Jr. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corp.,18 courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, bearing in mind the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to due process.19 In numerous cases, the liberal construction of the rules has been allowed by this Court when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and equity.20
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (Emphasis supplied.)
Our rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious cases which clog the court dockets and do a little more than waste the courts' time. These technical and procedural rules, however, are intended to ensure, rather than suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from their rigid enforcement may thus be allowed, as petitioners should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case, rather than lose their property on mere technicalities. x x x23II. The HLURB has primary jurisdiction over respondent's complaint; however, the judgment of the RTC remains valid.
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 [later transferred the HLURB] shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:In the 2007 case of Delos Santos v. Spouses Sarmiento,34 this Court held that not every case involving buyers and sellers of real estate may be filed with the HLURB whose jurisdiction is limited to cases filed by the buyer or owner of a subdivision lot or condominium unit.35 In addition, the HLURB's jurisdiction shall be based on any of the causes of action enumerated under Section of PD 1344, and the jurisdictional facts must be clearly alleged in the complaint.36
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 or salesman.
Sec. 5. General Jurisdiction. - Arbiters have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving laws being implemented by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and such other cases as may be provided by law unless specifically vested in another tribunal.The 2017 Rules also provides that "[t]he 2011 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Rules of Procedure37 (2011 Rules) and the Rules of Court shall have suppletory application insofar as these have not been specifically repealed or are no inconsistent with this Rules."38 With reference to the 2011 Rules, the disputes or controversies it covers are listed under Section 2, Rule 139 thereof. It is worth mentioning that the 2011 Rules does not specifically state that the HLURB shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the cases so covered.
Sec. 6. Specific Jurisdiction. -
6.1. Jurisdiction over real estate developments. The Arbiters shall exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving subdivisions, condominiums, memorial parks and similar real estate developments, as follows:
6.1.1. Claims for refund, complaints against unsound real estate business practices and other actions for specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and other complaints for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 and other related laws;
6.1.2. Suits filed in opposition to an application for certificate of registration and license to sell, development permits for condominium projects, clearance to mortgage, or the revocation or cancellation thereof, and locational clearances, certifications or permits, when issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board;
6.1.3. Suits filed by the project owner or developer or the duly registered homeowners association of the project pertaining to the open spaces or common areas of the subdivision or condominium, except those where third parties are involved; and,
6.1.4. Disputes involving easements within or among subdivisions projects.
6.2. Jurisdiction over homeowners and homeowners associations. The Arbiters shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving homeowners associations, as follows:
6.2.1. Suits filed in opposition to an application for, or the revocation of, certificate of registration of homeowners associations;
6.2.2. Intra-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among members of homeowners associations; between any or all of them and the homeowners association of which they are members, including federations and other umbrella organizations of homeowners associations;
6.2.3. Inter-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among two or more homeowners associations or condominium corporations, federations or other umbrella organizations of homeowners associations;
6.2.4. Disputes or controversies between the association and the homeowners or other beneficial users relating to the exercise of their respective rights, duties and obligations;
6.2.5. Disputes between the homeowners association and the State, insofar as its registration or right to exist and those which are intrinsically connected with the regulation of homeowners associations.
Sec. 4. Creation and Mandate of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development. - There is hereby created the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development, hereinafter referred to as the Department, through the consolidation of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and the Housing Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The Department shall act as the primary national government entity responsible for the management of housing, human settlement and urban development. It shall be the sole and main planning and policy-making, regulatory, program coordination, and performance monitoring entity for all housing, human settlement and urban development concerns, primarily focusing on the access to and the affordability of basic human needs. It shall develop and adopt a national strategy to immediately address the provision of adequate and affordable housing to all Filipinos, and shall ensure the alignment of the policies, programs, and projects of all its attached agencies to facilitate the achievement of this objective.It is important to note that under Section 12, Chapter IV of RA 11201, the HLURB has been reconstituted and shall henceforth be known as the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC). The adjudicatory function of the HLURB has been transferred to the HSAC and shall be attached to the Department for policy, planning and program coordination only.41
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over:The March 31, 2011 Decision of the RTC remains valid.33.1 All cases decided by the Regional Adjudicators; andSec. 34. Jurisdiction of Regional Adjudicators. - The Regional Adjudicators shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the following:
33.2 Appeals from decisions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies.
The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt by the parties.34.1 Cases involving subdivisions, condominiums, memorial parks and similar real estate developments:(a) Actions concerning unsound real estate business practices filed by buyers or homeowners against the project owner or developer, which cause prejudice to the buyers or committed with bad faith and disregard of the buyers' rights;34.2 Cases involving [Home owners Associations (HOA)]:
(b) Claims for refund, and other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman: Provided, That when the cause of action arises from the buyer's rights under Section 23 of PD 957 and the purchase price of the property is paid through a housing loan from a bank or other financing institutions, the latter shall be impleaded as necessary party;
(c) Cases involving specific· performance of contractual and statutory obligations arising from the sale of the lot or unit and development of the subdivision or condominium project;
(d) Disputes involving the open spaces or common areas and their use filed by the project owner or developer or the duly registered HOA, including the eviction of informal settlers therein, in accordance with the requirements of law, and the rules and regulations promulgated by duly constituted authorities;
(e) Suits to declare subdivision, condominium or other real estate developments within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department as abandoned, as defined under Section 3 of the Act for the purpose of Section 35 of PD 957;
(f) Disputes involving easements within or among subdivision projects; and
(g) Actions to annul mortgages executed in violation of Section 18 of PD 957 filed by a subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner and/or developer and the mortgagee.(a) Controversies involving the registration and regulation of HOAs;34.3 Disputes involving the implementation of Section 18 of RA 7279, as amended by 10884, and its implementing rules and regulations; and
(b) Intra-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among members of HOAs; between any or all of them and the HOA of which they are members;
(c) Inter-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among two (2) or more HOAs between and among federations and other umbrella organizations, on matters pertaining to the exercise of their right, duties and functions; and
(d) Disputes between such HOA and the State, insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist and those which are intrinsically connected with the regulation of HOAs or dealing with the internal affairs of such entity;
34.4 Disputes or controversies involving laws and regulations being implemented by the Department except those cases falling within the jurisdiction of other judicial or quasi-judicial body.
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. x x x44 (Emphasis supplied)III. The RTC was correct in annulling the Application for Continual Use,45 in ordering the return of the payments respondent made in the total amount of P457,760.74, plus legal interest, and in ordering the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees to respondent.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2724 dated October 25, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 7-15.
2Id. at 17-21; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3Id. at 22.
4 CA rollo, pp. 18-26; penned by Judge Amorfina Cerrado-Cezar.
5Rollo, pp. 17-18.
6 CA Rollo, p. 17.
7Id. at 31-38.
8Id. at 35.
9Rollo, pp. 17-21.
10Id. at 21.
11 CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
12Rollo, p. 22.
13Id. at 11.
14Escoto v. Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corp., 797 Phil. 320, 326 (2016).
15Rollo, p. 10.
16Cando v. Sps. Olazo, 547 Phil. 630, 635 (2007).
17Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev't. Co., Inc. v. CA, 358 Phil. 245, 257 & 261 (1998).
18 551 Phil. 768 (2007).
19Id. at 780.
20Id.
21 740 Phil. 70, 82 (2014).
22 633 Phil. 342 (2010).
23Id. at 350.
24Rollo. p. 10.
25San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Sec. Perez, et al., 17 Phil. 244, 262 (2013).
26Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, 527 Phil. 623, 626 (2006).
27Id. at 626-627.
28Id. at 627.
29 Charter of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.
30 Section 1, HLURB Resolution No. 681-00.
31 CA rollo, pp. 18-26.
32 Records, Vol. I, pp. 3-14.
33 Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of Its Decisions under Presidential Decree No. 957.
34 548 Phil. 1 (2007).
35Id. at 16.
36Id.
37 HLURB Resolution No. 871-11 otherwise known as the "2011 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board."
38 Sec. 4, Rule 1, HLURB Resolution No. 963-17.
39 Sec. 2. Rule 1, HLURB Resolution No. 871-11 provides:
Section 2. Coverage. - This Rules shall be applicable to the following disputes or controversies:
(a) Actions concerning unsound real estate business practices filed by buyers;
(b) Claims involving refund and other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman;
(d) Intra-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among members of homeowners associations between any or all of them and the homeowners association of which they are members;
(e) Inter-association disputes or controversies arising out of the relations between and among two or more homeowners associations;
(f) Disputes between such homeowners association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist and those which are intrinsically connected with the regulation of homeowners associations or dealing with the internal affairs of such entity;
(g) Suits filed in opposition to an application for certificate of registration and license to sell, development permit for condominium projects, clearance to mortgage, or the revocation or cancellation thereof, and locational clearances, certifications or permits, when issued by the Regional Field Office of HLURB;
(h) Appeals from decisions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies; and,
(i) Other analogous cases.
40 Sec. 6.1, Rule 2, HLURB Resolution No. 963-17, pertinently provides:
Sec. 6.1. Jurisdiction over real estate developments. The Arbiters shall exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving subdivisions, condominiums, memorial parks and similar real estate developments x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
41See Section 12, Chapter IV of the RA 11201.
42See Section 3.30, Rule I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development Act.
43 427 Phil. 604 (2002).
44Id. at 612.
45 Records, Vol. I, pp. 15-18.
46 CA Rollo, pp. 18-26.
47Id. at 24.
48Id.
49 CIVIL CODE, Article 2220.
50 CIVIL CODE, Article 2229.
51 CA Rollo p. 25.
52Id.
53Id.