HLURB

ROMULO R. PERALTA VS. HON. E DE LEON HON. RAUL E. DE LEON ET AL. (G.R.
NO. 187978, 24 NOVEMBER 2010)
THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF HLURB.
READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION IN jabbulao.com under the category
RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
DOCTRINE: ALL CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS ABOUT SUBDIVISIONS AND
CONDOMINIUMS ARE WITHIN THE JUDRISDICTION OF HLURB.
DIGEST:
FACTS:
ABC AND DEVELOPER XYZ COMPANY ENTERED INTO CONTRACT TO SELL.

ABC FAILED TO PAY FULL AMORTIZATION PAYMENT. XYZ FILED CASE AT
HLURB AGAINST ABC. XYZ WON THE CASE. HLURB ORDERED
CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT TO SELL, FORFEITURE OF AMORTIZATION
PAYMENT, FORCLOSURE OF ABCS CONDO UNITS AND GARNISHMENT OF HIS
BANK DEPOSITS. ABC FILED A CIVIL CASE AT RTC FOR ISSUANCE OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
ISSUE:
DOES RTC HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE TO RESTRAIN

ENFORCEMENT OF HLURB DECITION.
RULING:
RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION. ALL CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS ON

SUBDIVISIONS AND CONDOMINIUMS ARE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
HLURB. THE PROVISIONS OF P.D. NO. 957 WERE INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS
ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS AND CONDOMINIUMS.
Said the Supreme Court:
PEREZ, J.:
XXXX
We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Generally, the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its powers depends largely,
if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency. Presidential
Decree No. 1344, Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in
the Enforcement of its Decision under Presidential Decree No. 957, clarifies and spells out the
quasi-judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the following specific
terms:
Sec 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate real estate trade and business and in addition to
its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall
have the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide 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 lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, broker or
salesman.[1][14]
It is noteworthy that the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM-091699-10646, rendered a decision
against petitioner ordering him to pay CSDI the unpaid amount due from his purchase of a
condominium unit or in the alternative, the rescission of contract with forfeiture of payments
made by petitioner. A writ of execution was issued against petitioner and his appeal was
dismissed by the Office of the President. Petitioner no longer assailed this dismissal, thus the
same became final and executory. Unable to obtain relief before the Office of the President,
petitioner filed Civil Case No. 07-0141 before the RTC of Paraaque City. As adverted to
earlier, the RTC concluded that the jurisdiction over petitioners complaint falls on the
HLURB. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by
the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.[2][15]
In Civil Case No. 07-0141, petitioner prayed for the issuance of temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction to restrain respondent CSDI from cancelling the Contract to Sell,
forfeiting the amortization payment, foreclosing petitioners condominium units, and garnishing
his bank deposits. Specifically, petitioner asked that the RTC, Branch 258:
1. Immediately upon receipt of this petition, a temporary restraining Order be issued and/or a
Preliminary Injunction, pending the determination of the merits of the case, by way of restraining
defendants from forfeiting the amortization payments, foreclosure of plaintiffs condominium
unit, its break opening, and garnishment of plaintiffs bank deposits at Bank of Philippine
Islands, Forbes Park branch, Makati City.
2. To order the final and permanent injunction.
3. And to order defendant-developer to pay plaintiff the actual damages of his hospitalization
amounting to Php 60,000.00 including the interest until fully paid, caused by the unlawful and
damaging acts of defendants as above shown;
4. To order defendant developer to pay P300,000.00 as moral damages to plaintiff;
5. Another payment of P300,000.00 as exemplary damages to plaintiff;
6. To pay Attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and costs of suit;
7. Ordering defendants to adhere to the License to Sell and all its strict compliance thereto
imposed on defendant developer.[3][16]
We have to agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that jurisdiction over the
complaint filed by the petitioner is with the HLURB.
Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. v. Almendras,[4][17] finds application in this case. The Court
ruled:
The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to encompass all questions regarding
subdivisions and condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an appropriate
government agency, the HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of
provisions and the enforcement of contractual rights with respect to said category of real estate
may take recourse. The business of developing subdivisions and corporations being imbued with
public interest and welfare, any question arising from the exercise of that prerogative should be
brought to the HLURB which has the technical know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its
powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of
private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial
function, exercisable only by the regular courts.[5][18]
This Court was equally explicit in Chua v. Ang,[6][19] when it pronounced that:
x x x The law recognized, too, that subdivision and condominium development involves public
interest and welfare and should be brought to a body, like the HLURB, that has technical
expertise. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB, on the other hand, is empowered to
interpret and apply contracts, and determine the rights of private parties under these
contracts. This ancillary power, generally judicial, is now no longer with the regular courts to
the extent that the pertinent HLURB laws provide.
Viewed from this perspective, the HLURBs jurisdiction over contractual rights and
obligations of parties under subdivision and condominium contracts comes out very clearly.[7][20]
We are in accord with the RTC when it held:
First: On the matter of lack of jurisdiction of this Court over this case This Court is fully aware
of the cited decisions of respondents particularly those which pertain to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as provided for under pertinent laws
to the exclusion of the regular courts and this is one of them. It cannot be gainsaid that while
[plaintiff] harps on Arts. 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines to be the basis of
his cause of action for damages before this Court, the issue of his claiming damages against
respondent Concepts & Systems Devt. Inc. (CSDI), has already been resolved in HLURB Case
No. REM-091699-10646 in favor of CSDI and against him to which a Writ of Execution has
been issued, partially implemented by co-respondent Sheriff Lucas Eloso Eje and to which
[plaintiff] is asking this Court to issue a temporary restraining order in order to suspend the full
implementation of said writ. While [plaintiff] claims that his cause of action is one of damages,
the truth is his main objective is to have this Court enjoin the enforcement of the writ of
execution issued by the HLURB. Such subterfuge is easily discernible in view of the amount of
damages [plaintiff] is only claiming in this case against that which respondent CSDI is entitled to
if the writ of execution is fully satisfied. This cannot be done for it is tantamount to undue
interference with the decision of a quasi-judicial body which, as above-stated, is vested by law
and jurisprudence with exclusive authority to hear and decide cases between sellers and buyers
of subdivision lots and condominium units, among others.
The Court, therefore, hereby adopts by reference the arguments of respondent CSDI relative to
this Courts lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide this case which need no longer be repeated
herein as it will not serve any useful purpose.[8][21]
As observed in C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. v. Hibionada:[9][22]
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of
the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative
bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This
quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power

entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the decision of the HLURB in HLURB Case No. REM091699-10646, has already become final and executory due to the failure of the petitioner to
elevate the dismissal of his appeal by the Office of the President to the Court of Appeals. It is
axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or
be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.[10][23]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 May 2008 in CA G.R. SP No. 98922 as well as its
Resolution dated 11 May 2009 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

HLURB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HLURB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HLURB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMULO R. PERALTA VS. HON. E DE LEON HON. RAUL E. DE LEON ET AL. (G.R.

NO. 187978, 24 NOVEMBER 2010)

THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE JURISDICTION OF HLURB.

ABC AND DEVELOPER XYZ COMPANY ENTERED INTO CONTRACT TO SELL.

DOES RTC HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE TO RESTRAIN

RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION. ALL CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS ON

We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Unsound real estate business practices;

quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power

You might also like