2) Rodriguez - Eugenio v. Drilon (d2017)

Digest by: Alyssa Rodriguez
Eugenio VS Drilon
GR Number + Date: G.R. 109404, January 22,
1996
Petition: Instant Petition seeking to set aside the
Decision of the respondent Executive Secretary.
Petitioner: Florencio Eugenio - doing business under
the name E. & S. Delta Village
Respondent: Franklin M. Drilon Executive
Secretary of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB); Prospero Palmiano private
respondent
Ponencia: Justice Panganiban
DOCTRINE: Retroactivity of laws. As well as the
importance of the intent of laws, consistent with its
preamble.
FACTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
May 10, 1972 - private respondent (Palmiano),

on installment basis, purchased two lots in the E
& S Delta Village in Quezon City from petitioner
(Eugenio) and his co-owner/ developer Fermin
Salazar.
The Delta Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
filed a complaint of non-development (docketed
as cases 2619 and 2620) to the National Housing
Authority (NHA). Acting on this, the NHA
ordered petitioner to cease and desist from
making further sales of lots in said village or in
any project owned by him.
And while these NHA Cases (Cases Nos. 2619
and 2620) were still pending, private respondent
(Palmiano) filed with the Office of Appeals,
Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
(HSRC), a complaint against petitioner and
spouses Rodolfo and Adelina Relevo (he alleges
that in spite of the NHA ruling petitioner resold
one of the two lots to the said spouses Relevo, in
whose favor title to the said property was
registered).
Furthermore, private respondent suspended his
payments because of petitioners said failure to
develop the village. Respondent also prays for
the annulment of the sale to the Relevo spouses
and for reconveyance of the lot to him.
October 11, 1983 the OAALA rendered a
decision upholding the right of petitioner to
cancel the contract with private respondent and
dismissed private respondents complaint.
On appeal, the Commission Proper of the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
(HSRC) reversed the OAALA and (applying P.D.
957) ordered petitioner to complete the
subdivision development and to reinstate private
respondents purchase contract over one lot, and
as to the other (as it was bought by the couple
already), to immediately refund to Palmiano all
payments made thereon, plus interests
computed at legal rates from date of receipt
hereof until fully paid.
The respondent Executive Secretary, on appeal,
also affirmed the decision of the HSRC.
AND THUS, petitioner has now filed this
Petition for review before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
Whether or not P.D. 957, The Subdivision and
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree has retroactive
effect.
Whether or not, in pursuance of P.D. 957,
respondents are right in assailing that due to petitioners
failure to develop the land, private respondent is justified

in his non-payment of amortizations on installment
under a land purchase entered into by the parties way
before the enactment of P.D. 957.
PROVISIONS:
P.D.
957,
The
Subdivision
and
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree
protects the rights of subdivision and condominium
buyers by providing that the developers of these
properties should fulfill all the guarantees of facilities,
improvements, infrastructures and other forms of
development which they have offered and indicated in
the approved subdivision or condominium plans,
brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any
form of advertisement
Sec. 23 (0f P.D. 957). Non-Forfeiture of Payments. - No
installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or
condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to
buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer
when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or
developer, desists from further payment due to the
failure of the owner or developer to develop the
subdivision or condominium project according to the
approved plans and within the time limit for complying
with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be
reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization
interests but excluding delinquency interests, with
interest thereon at the legal rate.
RULING + RATIO:
1.
Yes, it is retroactive. Although, P.D.
957 did not expressly provide for
retroactivity in its entirety, such can be
plainly inferred from the unmistakable
intent of the law. The intent of the law, as
culled from its preamble and from the
situation, circumstances and conditions it
sought to remedy (From the Preamble:
WHEREAS, numerous reports reveal
that many real estate subdivision
owners, developers, operators, and/or
sellers have reneged on their
representations and obligations to
provide and maintain properly
subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage,
water systems, lighting systems, and
other similar basic requirements, thus
endangering the health and safety of
home and lot buyers), must be enforced.
2.
Yes. Pursuant to Section 23 of P.D. 957,

respondent rightly invoked his desistance
from making further payment to
petitioner due to petitioners failure to
develop the subdivision project according
to the approved plans and within the time
limit for complying with the same.
DISPOSITION
1. P.D. 957 is to be given retroactive effect so as to
cover even those contracts executed prior to its
enactment in 1976.
2. There is no merit in petitioners contention that
respondent Secretary exceeded his jurisdiction
in ordering the refund of private respondents
payments on Lot 12 although (according to
petitioner) only Lot 13 was the subject of the
complaint.
Digest by: Alyssa Rodriguez

3. The petition is DENIED due course and is
hereby DISMISSED.

2) Rodriguez - Eugenio v. Drilon (d2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2) Rodriguez - Eugenio v. Drilon (d2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

2) Rodriguez - Eugenio v. Drilon (d2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest by: Alyssa Rodriguez

May 10, 1972 - private respondent (Palmiano),

failure to develop the land, private respondent is justified

Yes. Pursuant to Section 23 of P.D. 957,

Digest by: Alyssa Rodriguez

You might also like