Dacey V Mt. Everst
Dacey V Mt. Everst
Dacey V Mt. Everst
ADELFA J. DACEY,
Complainant,
- versus -
DECISION
This is a case for refund and damages filed by Adelfa J. Dacey against
Mt. Everest Properties Inc.
Summons was served on May 27, 2013 but still respondent did not
file its Answer, hence, an Order dated April 04, 2013 was issued for the
complainant to provide new address of the respondent corporation.
On May 02, 2014 an Order was issued by this Office to grant the
complainants Motion to serve Service of summons by Publication.
This Office resolves first the issue of jurisdiction.Section 2. Coverage- These Rules shall be applicable to the
following disputes or controversies:
(a) xxx;
(b) Claims involving refund and other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, broker or salesman; xxx
2|Page
This provision must be read in the light of the laws preamble, which
explains the reasons for enactment of the law or the contextual basis for its
interpretation. The laws introductory clause states that the HLURB
exercises regulatory authority over cases of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations
perpetrated
by
unscrupulous
subdivision
sellers
and
operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from
liens and encumbrances.1
Additionally, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the law to a court
or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. But where the
actual issues are evident from the records of the case, then the jurisdiction
over the subject matter need not depend upon the literal assertions in the
complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts based on the
evidence that the parties presented in due course. 3 Since in this case, the
question on subdividing the land adverted to by respondent is within the
power of this Board to decide, it stands to reason that this Office is
empowered to exercise that authority.
This intent, amply articulated in its deed of conditional sale places its
action within the ambit of the HLURBs exclusive jurisdiction and outside
4|Page
the reach of the regular courts. Accordingly, complainants action to file her
complaint before the HLURB, the body with the proper jurisdiction is
proper. As to the issue of Securities and Exchange Commissions
jurisdiction over HOA, the same is not meritorious for it is now the Magna
Carta for Homeowners Association and IRR of R.A 9904. However, the
Deed of Conditional Sale express that there is a seller-buyer relationship.
Hence, HLURB has exclusive over this case.
This Court was equally explicit in Chua v. Ang, when it pronounced that:
xxx
The
law
recognized,
too,
that
subdivision
and
condominium
to
the
extent
that
the
pertinent
HLURB
laws
provide.
4ROMULO R. PERALTA vs. HON. RAUL E. DE LEON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Paraaque,
Branch 258, HON. ARBITER DUNSTAN SAN VICENTE, in his capacity as Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Arbiter and LUCAS ELOSO EJE, in his capacity as Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Paraaque City
and CONCEPTS AND SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT INC., as represented by its CHAIRMAN KASUO NORO,
G.R. No. 187978, November 24, 2010. G.R. No. 187978
5|Page
paramount issue left for resolution boils down to whether or not entitled to
refund of the total amount paid over the subject property.
the
present
case,
Mt.
Everests
obligation
to
execute
the
corresponding deed of sale and to deliver the transfer certificate of title and
6|Page
possession of the subject lot arose and thus became due and demandable at
the time complainant Adelfa J. Dacey had fully paid the purchase price for
the subject lot. Consequently, respondents failure to meet the said
obligation constituted a substantial breach of the contract which perforce
warranted its rescission
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 fulfilment and the
rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He
may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfilment, if the latter
should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just
cause authorizing the fixing of a period. This is understood to be without
prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in
accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.
In this light, it cannot be denied that only Mt. Everest benefited from
the contract, having received full payment of the contract price sometime in
2003 while Adelfa Dacey remained prejudiced by the persisting non-delivery
of the title despite full payment. As a necessary consequence, considering
the propriety of the rescission as earlier discussed, Adelfa Dacey must be
able to recover the total purchase price of the property plus interest
consistent with the intent of PD 957 to protect the buyer against
unscrupulous developers, operators and/or sellers who reneged on their
obligations.
7|Page
Cc:
Atty. Carlos I. Castillo Jr.
Counsel for the complainant
#102 Baraca Subic, Zambales
9|Page