Posted by: Helene Grace on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Suntay and Gocolay were buyers of a condominium unit from Bayfront Development Corporation (Bayfront). Suntay has already paid in full the amount of such units. However, Bayfront failed to deliver the condominium unit. Suntay then filed an action against HLURB for violation of PD 957 and PD 1344, rescission of contract, sum of money and damages.
On the other hand, Gocolay, chairperson and president of Keyser Mercantile Co., Inc. (Keyser), claims that she has also purchased on installment basis of the same Unit G, among others. She completed her payments in 1991 but Bayfront executed the deed of absolute sale and delivered CCT No. 15802 only on November 9, 1995.
When Gocolay is about to transfer CCT No. 15802 to Keyser, she discovered that there were annotations of notice of levy and certificate of sale at the back. Gocolay filed before the Expanded National Capital Regional Field Office of the HLURB a complaint for annulment of auction sale and cancellation of notice of levy from her title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the HLURB, a quasi-judicial agency, have jurisdiction over an action seeking the annulment of an auction sale, cancellation of notice of levy and damages with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order?
HELD:
The HLURB had no jurisdiction over the spouses Suntay.
Petitioners were condominium buyers, not project/condominium owners, developers, dealers, brokers or salesmen against whom a case cognizable by the HLURB could be brought. Obviously the cause of action (unsound business practice) could not have referred to them since they were mere buyers of a condominium unit, but only to Bayfront as developer of the project.
The HLURB had no jurisdiction over the issue of ownership, possession or interest in the disputed condominium unit. BP 129 vests jurisdiction over these matters on the RTC which exercises exclusive original jurisdiction.
The decision in HLURB was in effect a determination of the ownership of the condominium unit because it directed the annulment of the execution sale in HLRB on which petitioners title was based. This was clearly incorrect.
The respective preambles of PD 957 and PD 1344 seek to protect hapless buyers victimized by unprincipled realty developers. It was thus completely baseless for Gocolay to implead a real estate buyer like herself before a body like the HLURB which had no authority to determine the ownership of the subject condominium unit.
Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel which is not so in this case.
FACTS:
Suntay and Gocolay were buyers of a condominium unit from Bayfront Development Corporation (Bayfront). Suntay has already paid in full the amount of such units. However, Bayfront failed to deliver the condominium unit. Suntay then filed an action against HLURB for violation of PD 957 and PD 1344, rescission of contract, sum of money and damages.
On the other hand, Gocolay, chairperson and president of Keyser Mercantile Co., Inc. (Keyser), claims that she has also purchased on installment basis of the same Unit G, among others. She completed her payments in 1991 but Bayfront executed the deed of absolute sale and delivered CCT No. 15802 only on November 9, 1995.
When Gocolay is about to transfer CCT No. 15802 to Keyser, she discovered that there were annotations of notice of levy and certificate of sale at the back. Gocolay filed before the Expanded National Capital Regional Field Office of the HLURB a complaint for annulment of auction sale and cancellation of notice of levy from her title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the HLURB, a quasi-judicial agency, have jurisdiction over an action seeking the annulment of an auction sale, cancellation of notice of levy and damages with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order?
HELD:
The HLURB had no jurisdiction over the spouses Suntay.
Petitioners were condominium buyers, not project/condominium owners, developers, dealers, brokers or salesmen against whom a case cognizable by the HLURB could be brought. Obviously the cause of action (unsound business practice) could not have referred to them since they were mere buyers of a condominium unit, but only to Bayfront as developer of the project.
The HLURB had no jurisdiction over the issue of ownership, possession or interest in the disputed condominium unit. BP 129 vests jurisdiction over these matters on the RTC which exercises exclusive original jurisdiction.
The decision in HLURB was in effect a determination of the ownership of the condominium unit because it directed the annulment of the execution sale in HLRB on which petitioners title was based. This was clearly incorrect.
The respective preambles of PD 957 and PD 1344 seek to protect hapless buyers victimized by unprincipled realty developers. It was thus completely baseless for Gocolay to implead a real estate buyer like herself before a body like the HLURB which had no authority to determine the ownership of the subject condominium unit.
Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel which is not so in this case.
