Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD

HLURB Regional Office XI
Davao City

NADINE R. LLUSTRE COMPLAINT NO.:______

Complainant,
FOR: SPECIFIC
HUNGHONG HIKAP PERFORMANCE,
DEVELOPMENT CANCELLATION OF
CORPORATION, DEVELOPER’S LICENSE
KATHRYN O. BERNARDO, AND AUTHORITY TO
ERICH J. GONZALES SELL, IMPOSITION OF
Respondents. FINES FOR UNSOUND
X==============/ REAL ESTATE
PRACTICES, DAMAGES,
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW complainant, through the undersigned counsel

and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers:

PARTIES

1. Complainant Nadine R. Llustre is a Filipino, of legal age,

single and a resident of L-17, B-10, Blue Bells St., Malunggay
Subdivision, Davao City.Complainant may be served with this
Honorable Office’s processes through the office of the undersigned
counsel with address at Edward Diaz Commercial Building, Juan Luna
Street, Barangay 29-C, Davao City and with telephone numbers (082)
2217999 and (082) 2248889 (telefax) and e-mail address:
edwarddiazlawoffice@yahoo.com.

2. Respondent HUNGHONG HIKAP DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION is a corporation duly organized and existing in
accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines with

1
principal office at 69 Bolton Extension Street, Davao City, where it
may be served with summons and other processes of this Honorable
Office.

3. Respondent Kathryn Bernardo is a Filipino, of legal age,

single and a resident of Davao City. She is the Executive Vice-
President of Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation. She may be
served with summons and other processes of this Honorable Office at
the aforestated address of respondent Hunghong Hikap Development
Corporation.

4. Respondent Erich J. Gonzales is a Filipino, of legal age and

a resident of Island Garden City of Samal. She may be served with
summons and other processes of this Honorable Office at the
aforestated address of respondent Hunghong Hikap Development
Corporation.

5. Respondents John Does are of unknown addresses and are

impleaded herein as necessary parties because they are in possession
of and/or having custody of the titles of the lands which complainant
Nadine R. Llustre purchased from respondents Hunghong Hikap
Development Corporation and the rest of the respondents.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

6. Presidential Decree No. 957, Section 2 subparagraphs (d)

and (e) provide:
X X X

(d) Subdivision project. "Subdivision

project" shall mean 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.

2
 (e) Subdivision lot. "Subdivision lot" shall
mean any of the lots, whether residential,
commercial, industrial, or recreational, in a
subdivision project.

X X X

7 Respondent Erich J. Gonzales is the owner of several lots

situated in Barrio Tandawan, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del
Norte. These lots fall within the definition of “subdivision project” and
“subdivision lot” as provided by Presidential Decree No. 957, Section
2, subparagraphs (d) and (e), since the lots involved are duly
registered, and have been partitioned for residential purposes for sale
and disposition to willing and interested buyers. Hereto attached and
marked as Annexes “A” respectively are copies of the document
“DEED OF SALE WITH RESERVATION OF TITLE” dated 22 October
2003.

8. Respondent Erich J. Gonzales has been authorized by

respondent Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation as her sales
agent involving the subdivision lots in controversy.

9. Complainant Nadine R. Llustre conveyed to respondent

Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation that she intended to buy
five subdivision lots. Respondent earmarked on the subdivision plan
the five subdivision lots to be bought by herein complainant. A copy
of the subdivision plan is hereto attached and marked as Annex “B”
hereof.

10. Subsequently, complainant entirely paid the price of the five

subdivision lots she purchased from respondent Hunghong Hikap
Development Corporation. As a result thereof, complainant
Evangeline was corollary issued by respondent Hunghong Hikap
Development Corporation a document entitled “OWNERSHIP”, which
states:

X X X

3
 OWNERSHIP

This is to certify that Nadine R. Llustre is the

registered holder of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE
(171) FOR ONE (1) Lot Unit/s.

Technically described and identified as

MONCADO 1 Block No. 11 Lot No. 9 being part and
portion and surveyed under OCT/TCT No. 16441
recorded at the office of the Registry of Deeds,
TAGUM CITY, Philippines.

X X X

OWNERSHIP

This is to certify that Nadine R. Llustre is the

registered holder of SIX HUNDRED (600) FOR FOUR
(4) Lot Unit/s.

Technically described and identified as

MONCADO 1 Block No. 9 Lot No. 6,7,8, & 9 being
part and portion and surveyed under OCT/TCT No.
16441 recorded at the office of the Registry of
Deeds, TAGUM CITY, Philippines.

X X X

Hereto attached and marked as Annexes “C” are copies

of the documents entitled “OWNERSHIP” and TCT No. 16441
respectively.

11. On the following day, or on 22 October 2003,

respondent Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation through its
Executive Vice-President, respondent Kathryn O. Bernardo executed
two (02) documents entitled “DEED OF SALE WITH RESERVATION
OF TITLE” to indicate the sale of the five subdivision lots, to wit:

X X X

4
 DEED OF SALE WITH RESERVATION OF TITLE

X X X

WHEREAS, THE VENDOR is the Atty. In-fact

of the Real Estate Property Owner by Virtue of the
Exclusive Marketing Agreement & Special Power of
Attorney denominated as Doc. No. 290, Page No.
58, Book No. 536, Series of 2001 by ATTY.
RODOLFTON S.J. DE LEON, that certain parcel of
land embraced in and covered by OCT No. (T-3377)
of the Registry of Deeds for Davao Province,
containing an approximate area of TWENTY EIGHT
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (28,530)
SQUARE METERS more of less situated at Moncado
1, Penaplata District, Island Garden City of Samal.

X X X

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of

the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND TEN
THOUSAND (P 210,000.00) PESOS, Philippine
Currency, paid in hand to the VENDOR by the
VENDEE, do hereby SELL, TRANSFER & CONVEY,
absolutely and unconditionally, unto an in favor the
said VENDEE, that certain real property consisting
of FOUR (4) lot/s under Blk. 9 Lot 6,7,8 & 9 with an
approximate area or a total of SIX HUNDRED (600)
SQUARE METERS more or less of which lot
surveyed and being part and portion of OCT/TCT
No. (T-3377) of the above stated and described
subject property.

X X X

DEED OF SALE WITH RESERVATION OF TITLE

X X X

WHEREAS, THE VENDOR is the Atty. In-fact

of the Real Estate Property Owner by Virtue of the
Exclusive Marketing Agreement & Special Power of
5
 Attorney denominated as Doc. No. 290, Page No.
58, Book No. 536, Series of 2001 by ATTY.
RODOLFTON S.J. DE LEON, that certain parcel of
land embraced in and covered by OCT No. (T-3377)
of the Registry of Deeds for Davao Province,
containing an approximate area of TWENTY EIGHT
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY (28,530)
SQUARE METERS more of less situated at Moncado
1, Penaplata District, Island Garden City of Samal.

X X X

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of

the sum of FIFTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED FIFTY (P 59, 850.00) PESOS, Philippine
Currency, paid in hand to the VENDOR by the
VENDEE, do hereby SELL, TRANSFER & CONVEY,
absolutely and unconditionally, unto an in favor the
said VENDEE, that certain real property consisting
of ONE (1) lot/s, under Blk 11 Lot 9 with an
approximate area or a total of ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY ONE (171) SQUARE METERS more or less
of which surveyed and being part and portion of
OCT/TCT No. (T-3377) of the above stated and
described subject property.

X X X

12 Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-246636, T-246637, T-

246638 and T-246639 were delivered by respondents to complainant
Evangeline thereafter. Hereto attached and marked as Annex “D”
are photocopies of the aforesaid titles.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation and its executive
president, Kathryn o. Bernardo are not the subdivision lots that
complainant purchased as indicated in the Subdivision Plan (Annex
“B”) and in the document entitled “Ownership” (Annex “C”).

6
 13. The categorical mandate of P.D. No. 957, Section 25
obliges a subdivision owner or developer to deliver the title of
subdivision lots to the buyers upon full payment of the purchase
price. The provisions state:

Sec. 25. Issuance of Title.— The owner

or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit
to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. X
XX

14. Respondents Hunghong Hikap Development Corporation

and its executive president, Kathryn O. Bernardo, breached the
mandate of the aforequoted law by delivering the titles of subdivision
lots which are completely different from that actually purchased by
herein complainant. The other title for the fifth lot was not delivered
to complainant despite repeated demands.

15. Respondents’ failure to comply with the statutory obligation

provided by Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 is a blatant violation of the
provisions of the said law and such transgression must be rectified by
imposing upon them the sanctions provided under Sections 38 and
39 thereof, to wit:

X X X

Section 38. Administrative Fines. The

Authority may prescribe and impose fines not
exceeding ten thousand pesos for violations of the
provisions of this Decree or of any rule or regulation
thereunder. Fines shall be payable to the Authority
and enforceable through writs of execution in
accordance with the provisions of the Rules of
Court.

X X X

Section 39. Penalties. Any person who shall

violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or

7
 any rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant
to this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished
by a fine of not more than twenty thousand
(P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not
more than ten years:

Provided, That in the case of corporations,

partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the
President, Manager or Administrator or the person
who has charge of the administration of the
business shall be criminally responsible for any
violation of this Decree and/or the rules and
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

X X X

16. One of the purposes of P.D. No. 957 is to discourage and

prevent unscrupulous owners, developers, agents and sellers from
reneging on their obligations and representations to the detriment of
innocent purchasers. This Honorable Office must not countenance a
patent violation on the part of the said respondents that will cause
great prejudice to complainant. This Honorable Office must be
vigilant and should punish, to the fullest extent of the law, those who
prey upon the desperate with empty promises of better lives, only to
feed on their aspirations.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Complainant repleads and incorporates by way of reference all

the foregoing averments, and further avers:

17. Respondents’ obligation to deliver the corresponding

certificates of title after the full payment of the purchase price of the
subdivision lots is simultaneous and reciprocal. Upon the full payment
of the purchase price of the subdivision lots, respondents’ obligation
to deliver the titles of the said lots which she actually purchased from
respondents becomes extant.

8
 18. Article 1191 of the Civil Code sanctions the right of a party
to the contract to compel the performance of the obligation with
payment of damages in the event of breach thereof by the other
party, to wit:

Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is

implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the
obligors should not comply with what is
incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between the

fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation,
with the payment of damages in either case.
He may also seek rescission, even after he
has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should
become impossible.

The court shall decree the rescission claimed,

unless there be just cause authorizing the
fixing of a period.

19. Article 1495 of the Civil Code likewise states that the
vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as
warrants the thing which is the object of the sale.

20. On 05 November 2012, complainant through counsel sent a

demand letter to respondents to rectify the breach of its reciprocal
obligation by delivering to complainant the TCTs covering Lot 09 of
Block 11 and Lots 06, 07, 08 and 09 of Block 09. A copy of the
demand letter dated 05 November 2012 is hereto attached and
marked Annex “E”.

21. Respondents however refused and still refuse to comply

with their aforesaid obligation. A copy of respondents letter reply
dated 20 November 2012 is hereto attached and marked as Annex
“F” hereof.

9
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Complainant repleads and incorporates by way of reference all

the foregoing averments, and further avers:

22. Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that every person must,
in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith. Further, Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person
who willfully causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for
the same.

23. On the other hand, the pertinent provisions of the Code of

Ethics and Responsibilities for Real Estate Service Practitioners read:

X X X

Article II Section 2. The Real Estate Service

Practitioners shall perform it duties and
responsibilities with utmost integrity, responsibility,
fidelity, sincerity, respect and courtesy for
colleagues in the profession with a behavior proper
to a professional. The Real Estate Service
Practitioners shall adhere to the strict
compliance of the National Code of Ethics and
Responsibilities with honesty, good moral conduct
and strong sense of values. The practitioner shall
observe at all times objective moral standards in the
practice of real estate service with good governance
in relation with his/her client(s) and the community
and in service to the nation and Filipino people
(Emphasis ours).

X X X

Article III Section 2. To the Public

(a) x x x

10
 (b) The Practitioner shall cooperate with the
government in protecting the public against deceit,
misrepresentation, unfair, relevant information and
other related unethical and immoral practices x x x.

Article III Section 3. To the Clients

(a) The Practitioner in accepting any

authority, listing and/or assignment to act for and in
behalf of a client shall be obliged with prudence,
integrity, loyalty, fidelity and good faith in
protecting and promoting the interest of the client
without sacrificing the legitimate interest of
the other party in the transaction which shall
not be contrary to the law, good morals and
public interest. (Emphasis ours)

X X X

Article IV Section 1. Real Estate Brokers shall:

(a) x x x

(b) x x x

(c) x x x assist x x x the other party acquire

possession and ownership of the property subject to
the transaction in accordance with the agreed terms
and conditions of the parties.

X X X

24. Respondents committed an act of misrepresentation when

the titles it intentionally delivered to herein complainant did not cover
the subdivision lots the complainant actually purchased. The
legitimate interest of herein complainant was sacrificed by
respondents when they resorted to their fraudulent machinations.

25. The delivery by the respondents of the specious titles to

complainant is tainted with bad faith since notwithstanding the
perfection of the contract of sale as shown by the subdivision plan

11
and other pertinent documents incidental thereto i.e. Documents
entitled “Ownership” and “Deed of Sale With Reservation of Title”,
the respondents purposely delivered titles that did not cover the
subdivision lots bought by complainant. When complainant conducted
an ocular inspection of those lots covered by the aforestated titles
given by respondents to her, she discovered that these lots appeared
to be a forest without any road that connects the lots to the main
subdivision when complainant saw by her own eyes the appearance
and condition of the said lots, she was totally shocked she even had
to heirs off-road an motorcycle just so that complainant could
reached the said lots.

26. Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose. Bad faith means

breach of a known duty through some ill motive or interest. Bad faith
partakes of the nature of fraud.

27. By precluding consummation of the contract of sale to the

damage and prejudice to herein complainant, respondent discarded
the Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for Real Estate Service
Practitioners.

28. On one hand, the following sanctions shall be meted to the

real estate practitioner who violates the provisions of the Code of
Ethics:

a. First Offense – Reprimand or Warning;

b. Second Offense – Suspension of APO

membership for Two (2) months;

c. Third Offense – Suspension of APO membership

for Four (4) months;

d. Fourth Offense – Recommended for Suspension

of License at the Professional Regulatory Board of
Real Estate Service (PRBRES) and at the PRC;

e. Fifth Offense or Habituality – Recommendation

for the Cancellation of License at the PRBRES and
at the PRC.

12
 29. On the other hand, the following sanctions shall be meted
to the real estate practitioner who shall violate any provisions of the
Real Estate Service Act or R.A. 9646:

a. First Offense – Suspension of APO membership

for Four (4) months;

b. Second Offense – Recommended for Suspension

of License at the Professional Regulatory Board of
Real Estate Service (PRBRES) and at the PRC;

c. Third Offense or Habituality – Recommendation

for the Cancellation of License at the PRBRES and
at the PRC.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Complainant repleads and incorporates by way of reference all

the foregoing averments, and further avers:

30. Complainant was constrained to engage the services of

counsel to enforce her plain, just and valid claim against respondents’
intransigence, in gross and evident bad faith, to perform what was
incumbent upon them (Article 2208 [2] of the Civil Code of the
Philippines). The respondents should be made to pay the amount of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00) representing attorney’s fees.

31. For this reason, and for the continued refusal of the
respondents to deliver complainant’s valid, just and legal claims, the
latter suffered moral damages (Article 2220 of the Civil Code) which
may be reasonably placed at Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00).

32. The blatant violation of the rights of complainant by

respondents gives rise to obligation to indemnify the former in the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00) by way of nominal
damages (Article 2221 of the Civil Code).

13
 33. Respondents’ refusal to provide complainant her valid,
just and legal claim is reckless and oppressive and denied the herein
complainant of their right to her properties, hence, by way of
example or correction for the public good, defendants should be
made to pay by way of exemplary damages (Article 2232) which may
be reasonably fixed at Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00) PESOS.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Office that after notice and hearing, judgment be
rendered:

1. Ordering respondents to deliver the five (05) titles of these

subject lots which complainant actually puschased from respondents
consisting of four (04) lots under Block 09, Lot 6,7,8 and 9 with an
approximate area or a total of SIX HUNDRED (600) SQUARE METERS
more or less of which lots are surveyed and being part and portion of
OCT TCT No. (T-3377) and one (01) lot under Block 11, Lot 09 with
an approximate area or a total of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE
(171) SQUARE METERS more or less of which is surveyed and being
part and portion of OCT/TCT No. (T-3377);

2. Ordering respondents to cancel Transfer Certificates of Title

No T-246636, T-246637, T- 246638 and T-246639, all issued in the
of complainant;

3. Ordering for the cancellation of respondent First Davao

Millennium Property Ventures Services’ developer’s license and
authority to sell, and to cease and desist from its operation pending
trial of this case

4. Ordering each respondents to pay a fine of Twenty

Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00).

5. To initiate a case with Davao City Prosecution Office against

respondents for their violations of R.A. 9646 and of the Code of
Ethics and Responsibilities of Real Estate Service Practitioners.

14
 6. Ordering respondents to pay complainant the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Pnp50,000.00) by way of attorney’s fees.

7. Ordering respondents to pay complainant the amount of Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) by way of moral damages.

8. Ordering respondents to pay complainant the amount of Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) by way of nominal damages.

9. Ordering respondents to pay complainant the amount of Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) by way of exemplary damages.

10. Ordering respondents to pay the costs of this suit.

Complainant likewise prays for other relief just and equitable

this Honorable Office may deem appropriate under the premises.

In the City of Davao, Philippines, this 23 July 2018.

Edward Diaz Law Office

Counsel for Complainant
Edward Diaz Commercial Bldg., 99-2A Juan Luna St., Davao City
Telephone Nos. [082] 2249043/ [082] 2210987
E-mail address: Edwarddiazlawoffices@yahoo.com

By:

Edward Diaz
IBP NO. 987674/01-03-14/D.C
PTR NO. 3971865/01-03-14/D.C
ROLL NO. 44723
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. IV-0020753/02-16-19

15