Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Gab Estiada
    The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB did not have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners (condominium unit owners). While jurisdiction is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners in this case were actually seeking to invalidate prior agreements and resolutions by the Phoenix Heights Condominium Corporation's board that had already been approved by the HLURB. As such, the nature of the complaint was not something that fell under the HLURB's authority to hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Gab Estiada
    130 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB did not have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners (condominium unit owners). While jurisdiction is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners in this case were actually seeking to invalidate prior agreements and resolutions by the Phoenix Heights Condominium Corporation's board that had already been approved by the HLURB. As such, the nature of the complaint was not something that fell under the HLURB's authority to hear and decide cases.

    Original Title

    35. Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB did not have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners (condominium unit owners). While jurisdiction is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners in this case were actually seeking to invalidate prior agreements and resolutions by the Phoenix Heights Condominium Corporation's board that had already been approved by the HLURB. As such, the nature of the complaint was not something that fell under the HLURB's authority to hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views3 pages

    Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Gab Estiada
    The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB did not have jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners (condominium unit owners). While jurisdiction is typically determined by the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners in this case were actually seeking to invalidate prior agreements and resolutions by the Phoenix Heights Condominium Corporation's board that had already been approved by the HLURB. As such, the nature of the complaint was not something that fell under the HLURB's authority to hear and decide cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.

    G.R. No. 194024, 25 April 2012

    Facts:
    1. Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q. Lim and Andrew Q. Lim (petitioners) are
    registered individual owners of condominium units in Phoenix Heights
    Condominium located at H. Javier/Canley Road, Bo. Bagong Ilog,
    Pasig City, Metro Manila.

    2. On August 2008, petitioners, as condominium unit-owners, filed a


    complaint7 before the HLURB against DPDCI for unsound business
    practices and violation of the MDDR. The case was docketed as
    REM- 080508-13906.

    3. They alleged that DPDCI committed misrepresentation in their


    circulated flyers and brochures as to the facilities or amenities that
    would be available in the condominium and failed to perform its
    obligation to comply with the MDDR.

    4. DPDCI denied that it had breached its promises and representations


    to the public concerning the facilities in the condominium. It alleged
    that the brochure attached to the complaint was “a mere preparatory
    draft” and not the official one actually distributed to the public, and
    that the said brochure contained a disclaimer as to the binding effect
    of the supposed offers therein.

    5. DPDCI questioned the petitioners’ personality to sue as the action


    was a derivative suit. After due hearing, the HLURB rendered its
    decision8 in favor of petitioners.

    6. The CA ruled that the HLURB had no jurisdiction over the complaint
    filed by petitioners as the controversy did not fall within the scope of
    the administrative agency’s authority under P.D. No. 957. The
    HLURB not only relied heavily on the brochures which, according to
    the CA, did not set out an enforceable obligation on the part of
    DPDCI, but also erroneously cited Section 13 of the MDDR to support
    its finding of contractual violation.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by
    petitioners.

    Ruling:
    Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject
    matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
    allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of
    the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.
    The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has
    jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained
    in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the
    plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted
    therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief
    sought are the ones to be consulted.
    Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also
    remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
    recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Thus, it was
    ruled 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.

    In this case, the complaint filed by petitioners alleged causes of


    action that apparently are not cognizable by the HLURB considering
    the nature of the action and the reliefs sought. A perusal of the
    complaint discloses that petitioners are actually seeking to nullify and
    invalidate the duly constituted acts of PHCC – the April 29, 2005
    Agreement27 entered into by PHCC with DPDCI and its Board
    Resolution28 which authorized the acceptance of the proposed
    offsetting/settlement of DPDCI’s indebtedness and approval of the
    conversion of certain units from saleable to common areas. All these
    were approved by the HLURB.

    You might also like