Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SERENO, CJ.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:
BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent. AUG 0 5 2015
:x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DECISION
~
"
3 76 22,816 P52,134,560.00
First Deed In 1992
4 5,964 P14,990,514.00
Second Deed In 1993 13
Third Deed:i
(Third Sale) April 1993 41 15,565 }139,122,627.00
SMPI completed the payments for the 130 Italia II lots in December
1995. In compliance with Section 37 of all the three Deeds of Absolute
6
~
DECISION 3 G.R. No. 169343
Records,pp.42-50.
9
Id. at 53-57.
IO
Id. at 93-98.
~
DECISION 4 G.R. No. 169343
II
Id. at 467-471.
12
Id.atlOl.
13
Id. at 563-567.
~
DECISION 5 G.R. No. 169343
It was during the time 1992-1993 that [SMPI] bought from [BF
Homes] the 130 parcels of land located in the northern portion of BF
Homes, Paraiiaque City.
,..
~
DECISION 6 G.R. No. 169343
subject lots to the complainant the resolution of which is still pending the
said body.
Thus, while this Board may have jurisdiction over the instant
complaint, the issue on whether or not Mr. Orendain has overstepped his
authority which is pending resolution by the SEC, is to our mind a
condition sine qua non, the final resolution of which by said body is a
logical antecedent to the issue involved in the instant complaint and which
only the SEC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide.
SMPI filed a Petition for Review (Re: Decision dated January 25,
15
2002) with the HLURB Board of Commissioners, asseverating that: 1) the
SEC, in its Orders dated November 7, 1994 and August 22, 1995, had
upheld the validity of the Deeds of Absolute Sale and confirmed the
authority of the receiver to sell the 130 Italia II lots to SMPI, and said Orders
already became final after BF Homes failed to appeal the same before the
Court of Appeals, as provided for in Section 3, 16 Republic Act No. 5434, the
law in force at that time; 2) Orendain and/or FBO Networks Management,
Inc. were immune from suit pursuant to Section 9, Rule 9 17 of the Interim
Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-corporate Controversies and Section 17,
Rule 4 18 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation; 3)
BF Homes was estopped from refusing to deliver the remaining 20 titles
since it had already received the consideration and benefits from the sale of
the Italia II lots to SMPI and delivered 110 out of 130 TCTs to SMPI; 4) the
principle of suspending a case due to a prejudicial question only applies to
criminal cases; 5) BF Homes was mandated, under pain of criminal sanction
14
Id. at 563-565.
15
Id. at 583-605
16
Section 3. How appeals taken. Appeals shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the Court of
Appeals and with the court, officer, board, award, order, decision or judgment appealed from,
serving a copy thereof on all other interested parties. The notice of appeal shall state, under oath,
the material dates to show that it was filed within the period fixed in this Act.
17
Section. 9. Immunity.from suit. - The receiver and members of the management committee and the
persons employed by them shall not be subject to any action, claim or demand in connection with
any act done or omitted by them in good faith in the exercise of their functions and powers. All
official acts and transactions of the receiver or management committee duly approved or ratified
by the court shall render them immune from any suit in connection with such act or transaction.
18
Section. 17. immunity.from Suit. - The Rehabilitation Receiver shall not be subject to any action,
claim, or demand in connection with any act done or omitted by him in good faith in the exercise
of his functions and powers herein conferred.
~
DECISION 7 G.R. No. 169343
While this board may have the competence to rule on the validity
of the sales transaction entered into by Orendain ostensibly in behalf of BF
Homes, we decline to rule on the said issue in deference to the SEC or its
successor-in-interest, which has first taken cognizance of the issue,
applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Thus, in Vidad vs. RTC of
Negros Oriental, it was held:
~
DECISION 8 G.R. No. 169343
Wherefore, the petition for review is denied and the decision of the
office below is affirmed. 24
24
Id. at 671-672.
25
Signed by Manuel C. Domingo, Presidential Assistant, by authority of the President.
26
Records, p. 710.
~
DECISION 9 G.R. No. 169343
xx xx
Much has been made about the sale of the 130 lots not having been
approved by the SEC. It bears to stress in this regard that the Closing
Report which, doubtless includes the said sale, had been confirmed and
admitted by the SEC Hearing Panel. It may be that the Commission en
~
DECISION IO G.R. No. 169343
bane did not specifically confirm and approve the sale. But neither did it
interpose objection thereto, let alone disapprove the same. Be that as it
may, the presumptive validity and enforceability of such sale must be
posited. 27 ·
27
Id. at 708-709.
28
Id. at 708.
29
Id. at 729-730.
30
CA rollo, pp. 5-23.
31
Id. at 467-486.
~
DECISION 11 G.R. No. 169343
~
DECISION 12 G.R. No. 169343
The second element requires that the dispute among the parties be
intrinsically connected with the regulation or the internal affairs of
the corporation, partnership or association.
~
DECISION 13 G.R. No. 169343
~
DECISION 14 G.R. No. 169343
SMPI now comes before this Court, . through the instant Petition,
assailing the aforementioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals based on the following assignment of errors:
I.
/'fl1lf/v
DECISION 15 G.R. No. 169343
II.
~
DECISION 16 G.R. No. 169343
III.
~
DECISION 17 G.R. No. 169343
36
The amount is less than the total consideration per the Deeds of Sale, i.e., Pl06,247,701.00, but is
never disputed by the parties. Apparently, it is the aggregate amount actually received by BF
Homes from SMPI after deduction of withholding taxes.
37
Rollo, pp. 49-52.
~
DECISION 18 G.R. No. 169343
Presidential Decree No. 95?3 8 dated July 12, 1976 conferred exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business upon the National
40
Housing Authority (NHA). 39 Presidential Decree No. 1344 dated April 2,
1978 expanded the quasi-judicial powers of NHA by providing as follows:
Per Executive Order No. 648 41 dated February 7, 1981, the powers of
the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission, which, pursuant to Executive Order No. 90 dated December
17, 1986, was subsequently renamed as HLURB. 42 In Siasoco v. Narvaja, 43
the Court highlighted the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB over
complaints for specific performance in certain real estate transactions:
Under the Executive Order creating it, the HLURB has exclusive
jurisdiction to "hear and decide cases of unsound real estate business
practices; claims involving refund filed against project owners,
developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen; and cases of specific
performance." Accordingly, in United Housing Corporation v. Dayrit,
we ruled that it is the HLURB, not the trial court, which has jurisdiction
38
Promulgated on July 12, 1976.
39
Section 3. National Housing Authority - The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this
Decree.
40
Bearing the title "Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the
Enforcement of its Decision under Presidential Decree No. 957."
41
Section 8. Transfer of Functions. -The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority
pursuant to Presidential Decree Nos. 957, 1216, 1344 and other related laws are hereby transferred
to the Commission (Human Settlements Regulatory Commission). x x x.
42
Section 1. x x x c) Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. - The Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission; renamed as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, shall be the
sole regulatory body for housing and land development. It is charged with encouraging greater
private sector participation in low-cost housing through liberalization of development standards,
simplification ofregulations and decentralization of approvals for permits and licenses.
43
373 Phil. 766, 771 (1999).
~
DECISION 19 G.R. No. 169343
In fact, in the instant case, the HLURB did exercise jurisdiction over
and did take cognizance of the complaint of SMPI. Arbiter Balasolla
received pleadings and evidences from the parties, and after the period for
filing position papers and draft qecisions by the parties had lapsed, deemed
the case submitted for decision. However, at this stage, Arbiter Balasolla
demurred, and instead of deciding the case, suspended the proceedings until
the SEC ruled on the issue of whether or not Orendain, the receiver of BF
Homes, had authority to execute the Deeds of Absolute Sale over the 130
Italia II lots in favor of SMPI. On appeal, the HLURB Board of
Commissioners affirmed the suspension of proceedings.
When the case was appealed to the OP by SMPI, and then to the Court
of Appeals by BF Homes, both the OP and the Court of Appeals sustained
the jurisdiction of HLURB over the complaint for specific performance filed
by SMPI, the only difference being that the OP proceeded to resolve the case
on the merits based on the evidence on record while the appellate court
remanded the case to the HL URB for further proceedings.
The OP and the Court of Appeals are correct that the HLURB, in the
exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction, did not have to suspend the
proceedings and should have went ahead to resolve the complaint for
specific performance filed by SMPI given. its statutory mandate under
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1344 and its technical competence and
expertise over the subject matter. The HLURB was called upon to
determine the contractual obligations of BF Homes and SMPI, as seller and
buyer of subdivision lots, respectively, under the terms and conditions of the
44
471 Phil. 544, 558 (2004).
~
DECISION 20 G.R. No. 169343
Nonetheless, the Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals and finds
no more need to remand the case to the HLURB.
To recall, the parties were able to file pleadings and submit evidence
before Arbiter Balasolla. The case was already deemed submitted for
resolution with Arbiter Balasolla stopping short only of actually rendering a
decision. Taking into account that the necessary pleadings and evidence of
the parties are already on record, returning the instant case to the HL URB
for further proceedings will simply be circuitous and inconsistent with the
summary nature of HLURB proceedings. 46 The Court keeps in mind the
45
Spouses Chua v. Hon. Ang, 614 Phil. 416, 429 (2009).
46
Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1996 Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
r
f7rW'--..
DECISION 21 G.R. No. 169343
47
Id.; Section 6, Rule 1ofthe1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
48
Spouses Abejo v. Judge De La Cruz, 233 Phil. 668, 684-685 (1987), citing Pambujan Sur United
Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932, 941 (1954).
49
546 Phil. 87, 97-98 (2007).
50
Supra note 45 at 427.
~
DECISION 22 G.R. No. 169343
"We have laid down the rule that the remand of the
case or of an issue to the lower court for further reception
of evidence is not necessary where the Court is in position
to resolve the dispute based on the records before it and
particularly where the ends of justice would not be
subserved by the remand thereof (Escudero vs. Dulay, 158
SCRA 69). Moreover, the Supreme Court is clothed with
ample authority to review matters, even those not raised on
appeal if it finds that their consideration is necessary in
arriving at a just disposition of the case."
51
Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013,
709 SCRA 276, 281.
52
387 Phil. 28, 42 (2000).
~
~
DECISION 23 G.R. No. 169343
On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and for the
expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits
instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such
as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the
case.
Upon full payment by SMPI of the purchase price for the 130 Italia II
lots to BF Homes, it became mandatory upon BF Homes to deliver the TCTs
for said lots to SMPI. As the Court held in G.O.A.L., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals55 :
53
Records,pp.273,277,303.
54
a) BF Homes Payment Slip dated October 2, 1991 (Records, p. 260) for Pl0,000,000.00 paid
through Asian Bank Check No. 878466 dated October 1, 1991; b) BF Homes Payment Slip dated
December 10, 1991 (Records, p. 264) for the amounts of P15,000,000.00 and P27,000,000.00 paid
through United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 271741 dated December 10, 1991 and
Asian Bank Check No. 878534 dated December 10, 1991, respectively; c) BF Homes Office of the
Rehabilitation Receiver Official Receipt (OR) No. 144773 dated May 6, 1993 (Records, p. 256)
for P38,144,561.32 paid through UCPB Check No. 009384; d) BF Homes Office of the
Rehabilitation Receiver OR No. 144772 dated May 6, 1993 (Records, p. 253) for 123,456,414.88
also paid through UCPB Check No. 009384; e) BF Homes Payment Slip dated December 2, 1993
(Records, p. 252) for Pl0,000,000.00 and P.1,009,426.27 paid through Philippine Commercial
International Bank Check Nos. 092106009B and 09210601 OB, respectively.
55
342 Phil. 321, 326-327 (1997).
~
DECISION 24 G.R. No. 169343
Article 1358(1) of the Civil Code requires that "[a]cts and contracts
which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
~
DECISION 25 G.R. No. 169343
xx xx
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set
forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made
shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or
memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged,
or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received
without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
xx xx
xx xx
The contracts of sale of the 130 Italia II lots between BF Homes and
SMPI were actually reduced into writing into the three Deeds of Absolute
Sale which were signed by the representatives of the two corporations. The
only defect was that the Deeds were not notarized and, therefore, were not
public documents as required by Article 1358(1) of the Civil Code. Cenido
v. Spouses Apacionado 56 involved a closely similar situation and the Court
adjudged therein that:
56
376 Phil. 801, 819-821 (1999).
~
DECISION 26 G.R. No. 169343
xx xx
~
DECISION 27 G.R. No. 169343
xx xx
~
DECISION 28 G.R. No. 169343
Receiving full payment for the 130 Italia II lots from SMPI also
estops BF Homes from denying the authority of Orendain/FBO Networks
Management, Inc. to enter into the Deeds of Absolute Sale. The Court
applies by analogy its declarations in Bisaya Land Transportation, Inc. v.
58
BF Homes, Incorporated v. Court ofAppeals, 268 Phil. 276, 284 ( 1990).
59
Alemar 's Sibal & Sons, Inc. v. Judge Elbinias, 264 Phil. 456, 462 (1990).
60
Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(m).
~
DECISION 29 G.R. No. 169343
xx xx
~
DECISION 30 G.R. No. 169343
SO ORDERED.
~ fl_;o __ AJ~ ~ ~
TERESITA J.LJfQNAR'Do-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
J REZ
ESTELA ~it~ERNABE
Associate Justice
DECISION 31 G.R. No. 169343
CERTIFICATION