FIRST DIVISION of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City (OCP Las Piñas) charging respondent

directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in violation of

[G.R. No. 166836. September 4, 2013.] Section 25, in relation to Section 39, both of Presidential Decree No. 957 (I.S.
No. 00-2256). 5
SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC., petitioner, vs. SEC. At the same time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes for specific
HERNANDO B. PEREZ, ALBERT C. AGUIRRE, TEODORO B. performance in the HLURB (HLURB Case No. REM-082400-11183), 6 praying to
ARCENAS, JR., MAXY S. ABAD, JAMES G. BARBERS, STEPHEN compel BF Homes to release the 20 TCTs in its favor.
N. SARINO, ENRIQUE N. ZALAMEA, JR., MARIANO M.
MARTIN, ORLANDO O. SAMSON, CATHERINE R. AGUIRRE, In their joint counter-affidavit submitted in I.S. No. 00-2256, 7 respondent
and ANTONIO V. AGCAOILI, respondents. directors and officers of BF Homes refuted San Miguel Properties' assertions by
contending that: (a) San Miguel Properties' claim was not legally demandable
because Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to sell the 130 lots in 1992
DECISION and 1993 due to his having been replaced as BF Homes' rehabilitation receiver
by the SEC on May 17, 1989; (b) the deeds of sale conveying the lots were
irregular for being undated and unnotarized; (c) the claim should have been
BERSAMIN, J : p
brought to the SEC because BF Homes was under receivership; (d) in
receivership cases, it was essential to suspend all claims against a distressed
The pendency of an administrative case for specific performance brought corporation in order to enable the receiver to effectively exercise its powers
by the buyer of residential subdivision lots in the Housing and Land Use free from judicial and extra-judicial interference that could unduly hinder the
Regulatory Board (HLURB) to compel the seller to deliver the transfer rescue of the distressed company; and (e) the lots involved were under
certificates of title (TCTs) of the fully paid lots is properly considered a ground custodia legis in view of the pending receivership proceedings, necessarily
to suspend a criminal prosecution for violation of Section 25 of Presidential stripping the OCP Las Piñas of the jurisdiction to proceed in the action.
aHcDEC

Decree No. 957 1 on the ground of a prejudicial question. The administrative

determination is a logical antecedent of the resolution of the criminal charges On October 10, 2000, San Miguel Properties filed a motion to suspend
based on non-delivery of the TCTs. proceedings in the OCP Las Piñas, 8 citing the pendency of BF Homes'
receivership case in the SEC. In its comment/opposition, BF Homes opposed the
Antecedents motion to suspend. In the meantime, however, the SEC terminated BF Homes'
receivership on September 12, 2000, prompting San Miguel Properties to file on
Petitioner San Miguel Properties, Inc. (San Miguel Properties), a domestic
October 27, 2000 a reply to BF Homes' comment/opposition coupled with a
corporation engaged in the real estate business, purchased in 1992, 1993 and
motion to withdraw the sought suspension of proceedings due to the
April 1993 from B.F. Homes, Inc. (BF Homes), then represented by Atty.
intervening termination of the receivership. 9
Florencio B. Orendain (Orendain) as its duly authorized rehabilitation receiver
appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 2 130 residential On October 23, 2000, the OCP Las Piñas rendered its resolution, 10
lots situated in its subdivision BF Homes Parañaque, containing a total area of dismissing San Miguel Properties' criminal complaint for violation of Presidential
44,345 square meters for the aggregate price of P106,248,000.00. The Decree No. 957 on the ground that no action could be filed by or against a
transactions were embodied in three separate deeds of sale. 3 The TCTs receiver without leave from the SEC that had appointed him; that the
covering the lots bought under the first and second deeds were fully delivered implementation of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 957 exclusively
to San Miguel Properties, but 20 TCTs covering 20 of the 41 parcels of land with pertained under the jurisdiction of the HLURB; that there existed a prejudicial
a total area of 15,565 square meters purchased under the third deed of sale, question necessitating the suspension of the criminal action until after the issue
executed in April 1993 and for which San Miguel Properties paid the full price of on the liability of the distressed BF Homes was first determined by the SEC en
P39,122,627.00, were not delivered to San Miguel Properties. EHTIDA banc or by the HLURB; and that no prior resort to administrative jurisdiction had
been made; that there appeared to be no probable cause to indict respondents
On its part, BF Homes claimed that it withheld the delivery of the 20 TCTs
for not being the actual signatories in the three deeds of sale.
for parcels of land purchased under the third deed of sale because Atty.
Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation receiver at the time of the On February 20, 2001, the OCP Las Piñas denied San Miguel Properties'
transactions after being meanwhile replaced as receiver by FBO Network motion for reconsideration filed on November 28, 2000, holding that BF Homes'
Management, Inc. on May 17, 1989 pursuant to an order from the SEC. 4 directors and officers could not be held liable for the non-delivery of the TCTs
under Presidential Decree No. 957 without a definite ruling on the legality of
BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite demands. Thus, on
Atty. Orendain's actions; and that the criminal liability would attach only after
August 15, 2000, San Miguel Properties filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 BF Homes did not comply with a directive of the HLURB directing it to deliver No. 73008, 14 the CA dismissed San Miguel Properties' petition, holding and
the titles. 11 ruling as follows:

San Miguel Properties appealed the resolutions of the OCP Las Piñas to the From the foregoing, the conclusion that may be drawn is that the
Department of Justice (DOJ), but the DOJ Secretary denied the appeal on rule on prejudicial question generally applies to civil and criminal
October 15, 2001, holding: actions only.

After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no However, an exception to this rule is provided in Quiambao vs.
cogent reason to disturb the ruling of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas Osorio cited by the respondents. In this case, an issue in an
City. Established jurisprudence supports the position taken by the City administrative case was considered a prejudicial question to the
Prosecutor concerned. HTAIcD
resolution of a civil case which, consequently, warranted the
suspension of the latter until after termination of the administrative
There is no dispute that aside from the instant complaint for proceedings.
violation of PD 957, there is still pending with the Housing and Land
Use Resulatory Board (HLURB, for short) a complaint for specific Quiambao vs. Osorio is not the only instance when the
performance where the HLURB is called upon to inquire into, and rule Supreme Court relaxed the application of the rule on prejudicial
on, the validity of the sales transactions involving the lots in question question.
and entered into by Atty. Orendain for and in behalf of BF Homes. In Tamin vs. CA involving two (2) civil actions, the Highest Court
As early as in the case of Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal , 177 similarly applied the rule on prejudicial question when it directed
SCRA 72, the Supreme Court had ruled that the HLURB has exclusive petitioner therein to put up a bond for just compensation should the
jurisdiction over cases involving real estate business and practices demolition of private respondents' building proved to be illegal as a
under PD 957. This is reiterated in the subsequent cases of Union Bank result of a pending cadastral suit in another tribunal.
of the Philippines versus HLURB , G.R. [No.] 953364, June 29, 1992 and City of Pasig vs. COMELEC is yet another exception where a
C.T. Torres Enterprises vs. Hilionada, 191 SCRA 286. aESTAI
civil action involving a boundary dispute was considered a prejudicial
The said ruling simply means that unless and until the question which must be resolved prior to an administrative proceeding
HLURB rules on the validity of the transactions involving the for the holding of a plebiscite on the affected areas. cETDIA

lands in question with specific reference to the capacity of In fact, in Vidad vs. RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42 , it was
Atty. Orendain to bind BF Homes in the said transactions, there ruled that in the interest of good order, courts can suspend action in
is as yet no basis to charge criminally respondents for non- one case pending determination of another case closely interrelated or
delivery of the subject land titles. In other words, complainant interliked with it.
cannot invoke the penal provision of PD 957 until such time
that the HLURB shall have ruled and decided on the validity of It thus appears that public respondent did not act with grave
the transactions involving the lots in question. abuse of discretion . . . when he applied the rule on prejudicial question
to the instant proceedings considering that the issue on the validity of
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. the sale transactions . . . by . . . Orendain in behalf of BF Homes, Inc., is
SO ORDERED. 12 (Emphasis supplied) closely intertwined with the purported criminal culpability of private
respondents, as officers/directors of BF Homes, Inc., arising from their
The DOJ eventually denied San Miguel Properties' motion for failure to deliver the titles of the parcels of land included in the
reconsideration. 13 questioned conveyance.

Ruling of the CA All told, to sustain the petitioner's theory that the result
of the HLURB proceedings is not determinative of the criminal
Undaunted, San Miguel Properties elevated the DOJ's resolutions to the CA liability of private respondents under PD 957 would be to
o n certiorari a n d mandamus (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 73008), contending that espouse an absurdity. If we were to assume that the HLURB
respondent DOJ Secretary had acted with grave abuse in denying their appeal finds BFHI under no obligation to delve the subject titles, it
and in refusing to charge the directors and officers of BF Homes with the would be highly irregular and contrary to the ends of justice to
pursue a criminal case against private respondents for the non-
violation of Presidential Decree No. 957. San Miguel Properties submitted the
delivery of certificates of title which they are not under any
issue of whether or not HLURB Case No. REM-082400-11183 presented a legal obligation to turn over in the first place. (Bold emphasis
prejudicial question that called for the suspension of the criminal action for supplied)
violation of Presidential Decree No. 957. ATHCac

On a final note, absent grave abuse of discretion on the part of

In its assailed decision promulgated on February 24, 2004 in C.A.-G.R. SP the prosecutorial arm of the government as represented by herein
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 public respondent, courts will not interfere with the discretion of a COMPLAINT IS PREMATURE, BOTH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND
public prosecutor in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before RESPONDENT SECRETARY HAD IMPLIEDLY ADMITTED THE
him. A public prosecutor, by the nature of his office, is under no EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PRIVATE
compulsion to file a criminal information where no clear legal RESPONDENTS FOR THE CRIME CHARGED. 17
justification has been shown, and no sufficient evidence of guilt nor
prima facie case has been established by the complaining party. It is relevant at this juncture to mention the outcome of the action for
specific performance and damages that San Miguel Properties instituted in the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for HLURB simultaneously with its filing of the complaint for violation of
Certiorari and Mandamus is hereby DENIED. The Resolutions dated 15 Presidential Decree No. 957. On January 25, 2002, the HLURB Arbiter ruled that
October 2001 and 12 July 2002 of the Department of Justice are
the HLURB was inclined to suspend the proceedings until the SEC resolved the
AFFIRMED.
issue of Atty. Orendain's authority to enter into the transactions in BF Homes'
EcIaTA

SO ORDERED. 15 behalf, because the final resolution by the SEC was a logical antecedent to the
determination of the issue involved in the complaint before the HLURB. Upon
The CA denied San Miguel Properties' motion for reconsideration on
appeal, the HLURB Board of Commissioners (HLURB Board), citing the doctrine
January 18, 2005. 16
of primary jurisdiction, affirmed the HLURB Arbiter's decision, holding that
Issues although no prejudicial question could arise, strictly speaking, if one case was
civil and the other administrative, it nonetheless opted to suspend its action on
Aggrieved, San Miguel Properties is now on appeal, raising the following the cases pending the final outcome of the administrative proceeding in the
for consideration and resolution, to wit: interest of good order. 18
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE, SERIOUS AND Not content with the outcome, San Miguel Properties appealed to the
REVERSIBLE ERRORS WHEN IT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S CERTIORARI Office of the President (OP), arguing that the HLURB erred in suspending the
A N D MANDAMUS PETITION TO ORDER AND DIRECT RESPONDENT
proceedings. On January 27, 2004, the OP reversed the HLURB Board's ruling,
SECRETARY TO INDICT RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION
25, P.D. 957 IN THAT: SEHTAC
holding thusly:

1. THE OBLIGATION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS TO DELIVER TO The basic complaint in this case is one for specific performance
PETITIONER THE TITLES TO 20 FULLY-PAID LOTS IS MANDATED under Section 25 of the Presidential Decree (PD) 957 — "The
BY SECTION 25, PD 957. IN FACT, THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective."
HAD DULY CONFIRMED THE SAME PER ITS DECISION DATED 27 As early as August 1987, the Supreme Court already recognized
JANUARY 2005 IN O.P. CASE NO. 03-E-203, ENTITLED "SMPI V. BF the authority of the HLURB, as successor agency of the National
HOMES, INC.". Housing Authority (NHA), to regulate, pursuant to PD 957, in relation to
2. A FORTIORI, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' FAILURE AND/OR REFUSAL PD 1344, the real estate trade, with exclusive original jurisdiction to
TO DELIVER TO PETITIONER THE SUBJECT TITLES CONSTITUTES hear and decide cases "involving specific performance of contractual
CRIMINAL OFFENSE PER SECTIONS 25 AND 39, PD 957 FOR and statutory obligation filed by buyers of subdivision lots . . . against
WHICH IT IS THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF RESPONDENT the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman," the HLURB, in the
SECRETARY TO INDICT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THEREFOR. exercise of its adjudicatory powers and functions, "must interpret and
apply contracts, determine the rights of the parties under these
3. IN ANY EVENT, THE HLURB CASE DOES NOT PRESENT A contracts and award[s] damages whenever appropriate."
"PREJUDICIAL QUESTION" TO THE SUBJECT CRIMINAL CASE SINCE
THE FORMER INVOLVES AN ISSUE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT Given its clear statutory mandate, the HLURB's decision to await
FROM THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE LATTER. CONSEQUENTLY, for some forum to decide — if ever one is forthcoming — the issue on
THE HLURB CASE HAS NO CORRELATION, TIE NOR LINKAGE TO the authority of Orendain to dispose of subject lots before it
THE PRESENT CRIMINAL CASE WHICH CAN PROCEED peremptorily resolves the basic complaint is unwarranted, the issues
INDEPENDENTLY THEREOF. thereon having been joined and the respective position papers and the
evidence of the parties having been submitted. To us, it behooved the
4. IN FACT, THE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HLURB to adjudicate, with the usual dispatch, the right and obligation
EMANATE FROM THEIR MALA PROHIBITA NON-DELIVERY OF THE of the parties in line with its own appreciation of the obtaining facts and
TITLES TO TWENTY (20) FULLY-PAID PARCELS OF LAND TO applicable law. To borrow from Mabubha Textile Mills Corporation vs.
PETITIONER, AND NOT FROM THEIR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE Ongpin, it does not have to rely on the finding of others to discharge
HLURB'S RULING IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. IDCcEa this adjudicatory functions. 19 CHEDAc

5. NONETHELESS, BY DECREEING THAT PETITIONER'S CRIMINAL After its motion for reconsideration was denied, BF Homes appealed to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the CA (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 83631), raising as issues: (a) whether or not the the criminal case for violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957
HLURB had the jurisdiction to decide with finality the question of Atty. could be resolved is correct.
Orendain's authority to enter into the transaction with San Miguel Properties in
BF Homes' behalf, and rule on the rights and obligations of the parties to the A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises in a
contract; and (b) whether or not the HLURB properly suspended the case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the
proceedings until the SEC resolved with finality the matter regarding such criminal case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is
authority of Atty. Orendain. determinative of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and resolve it is
lodged in another court or tribunal. It is based on a fact distinct and separate
The CA promulgated its decision in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 83631,20 decreeing from the crime but is so intimately connected with the crime that it determines
that the HLURB, not the SEC, had jurisdiction over San Miguel Properties' the guilt or innocence of the accused. 22 The rationale behind the principle of
complaint. It affirmed the OP's decision and ordered the remand of the case to prejudicial question is to avoid conflicting decisions. 23 The essential elements
the HLURB for further proceedings on the ground that the case involved of a prejudicial question are provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of
matters within the HLURB's competence and expertise pursuant to the doctrine Court, to wit: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
of primary jurisdiction, viz.: intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
[T]he High Court has consistently ruled that the NHA or the
proceed.
HLURB has jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between
AHaDSI

the subdivision developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and a criminal
compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual case. Yet, contrary to San Miguel Properties' submission that there could be no
and statutory obligations.
prejudicial question to speak of because no civil action where the prejudicial
Hence, the HLURB should take jurisdiction over respondent's question arose was pending, the action for specific performance in the HLURB
complaint because it pertains to matters within the HLURB's raises a prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the proceedings
competence and expertise. The proceedings before the HLURB should determining the charge for the criminal violation of Section 25 24 of Presidential
not be suspended. Decree No. 957. This is true simply because the action for specific performance
While We sustain the Office of the President, the case must be was an action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the
remanded to the HLURB. This is in recognition of the doctrine of HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. 25
primary jurisdiction. The fairest and most equitable course to take
The determination of whether the proceedings ought to be suspended
under the circumstances is to remand the case to the HLURB for the
proper presentation of evidence. 21 HIESTA
because of a prejudicial question rested on whether the facts and issues raised
in the pleadings in the specific performance case were so related with the
Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding issues raised in the criminal complaint for the violation of Presidential Decree
the dismissal of San Miguel Properties' criminal complaint for violation of No. 957, such that the resolution of the issues in the former would be
Presidential Decree No. 957 for lack of probable cause and for reason of a determinative of the question of guilt in the criminal case. An examination of
prejudicial question? the nature of the two cases involved is thus necessary.
The question boils down to whether the HLURB administrative case An action for specific performance is the remedy to demand the exact
brought to compel the delivery of the TCTs could be a reason to suspend the performance of a contract in the specific form in which it was made, or
proceedings on the criminal complaint for the violation of Section 25 of according to the precise terms agreed upon by a party bound to fulfill it. 26
Presidential Decree No. 957 on the ground of a prejudicial question. Evidently, before the remedy of specific performance is availed of, there must
first be a breach of the contract. 27 The remedy has its roots in Article 1191 of
Ruling of the Court
the Civil Code, which reads:
The petition has no merit.
Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in
1. reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with
what is incumbent upon him.
Action for specific performance, even if pending
in the HLURB, an administrative agency, The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and
raises a prejudicial question the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in
either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen
BF Homes' posture that the administrative case for specific performance fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible. . . . (Emphasis
in the HLURB posed a prejudicial question that must first be determined before supplied) SIcCEA

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Accordingly, the injured party may choose between specific performance or 2.
rescission with damages. As presently worded, Article 1191 speaks of the Doctrine of primary jurisdiction is applicable
remedy of rescission in reciprocal obligations within the context of Article
1124 of the former Civil Code which used the term resolution. The remedy of That the action for specific performance was an administrative case
resolution applied only to reciprocal obligations, such that a party's breach pending in the HLURB, instead of in a court of law, was of no consequence at
of the contract equated to a tacit resolutory condition that entitled the all. As earlier mentioned, the action for specific performance, although civil in
injured party to rescission. The present article, as in the former one, nature, could be brought only in the HLURB. This situation conforms to the
contemplates alternative remedies for the injured party who is granted the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. There has been of late a proliferation of
option to pursue, as principal actions, either the rescission or the specific administrative agencies, mostly regulatory in function. It is in favor of these
performance of the obligation, with payment of damages in either case. 28 agencies that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is frequently invoked, not to
defeat the resort to the judicial adjudication of controversies but to rely on the
On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 957 is a law that regulates the expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of such agencies in their resolution.
sale of subdivision lots and condominiums in view of the increasing number of The Court has observed that one thrust of the proliferation is that the
incidents wherein "real estate subdivision owners, developers, operators, interpretation of contracts and the determination of private rights under
and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide contracts are no longer a uniquely judicial function exercisable only by the
and maintain properly" the basic requirements and amenities, as well as of regular courts. 31
reports of alarming magnitude of swindling and fraudulent manipulations
perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has been increasingly called into play
operators, 29 such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from on matters demanding the special competence of administrative agencies even
liens and encumbrances. Presidential Decree No. 957 authorizes the suspension if such matters are at the same time within the jurisdiction of the courts. A case
and revocation of the registration and license of the real estate subdivision that requires for its determination the expertise, specialized skills, and
owners, developers, operators, and/or sellers in certain instances, as well as knowledge of some administrative board or commission because it involves
provides the procedure to be observed in such instances; it prescribes technical matters or intricate questions of fact, relief must first be obtained in
administrative fines and other penalties in case of violation of, or non- an appropriate administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by
compliance with its provisions. the courts although the matter comes within the jurisdiction of the courts. The
application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case in the
Conformably with the foregoing, the action for specific performance in the court but only for its suspension until after the matters within the competence
HLURB would determine whether or not San Miguel Properties was legally of the administrative body are threshed out and determined. 32 DaCEIc

entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs, while the criminal
action would decide whether or not BF Homes' directors and officers were To accord with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the courts cannot and
criminally liable for withholding the 20 TCTs. The resolution of the former must will not determine a controversy involving a question within the competence of
obviously precede that of the latter, for should the HLURB hold San Miguel an administrative tribunal, the controversy having been so placed within the
Properties to be not entitled to the delivery of the 20 TCTs because Atty. special competence of the administrative tribunal under a regulatory scheme.
Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to In that instance, the judicial process is suspended pending referral to the
his receivership having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for the criminal administrative body for its view on the matter in dispute. Consequently, if the
liability for the violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 would courts cannot resolve a question that is within the legal competence of an
evaporate, thereby negating the need to proceed with the criminal case. administrative body prior to the resolution of that question by the latter,
especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
Worthy to note at this juncture is that a prejudicial question need not discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is enough for the administrative agency to ascertain technical and intricate matters of fact, and a
prejudicial question to simply test the sufficiency of the allegations in the uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory
information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A statute administered, suspension or dismissal of the action is proper. 33
party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically
admitted that all the essential elements of the crime have been adequately 3.
alleged in the information, considering that the Prosecution has not yet Other submissions of petitioner are unwarranted
presented a single piece of evidence on the indictment or may not have rested It is not tenable for San Miguel Properties to argue that the character of a
its case. A challenge to the allegations in the information on the ground of violation of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 as malum prohibitum, by
prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge which criminal liability attached to BF Homes' directors and officers by the mere
through a non-criminal suit. 30 HDaACI
failure to deliver the TCTs, already rendered the suspension unsustainable. 34
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The mere fact that an act or omission was malum prohibitum did not do away 10.Id. at 247-250.
with the initiative inherent in every court to avoid an absurd result by means of
11.Id. at 272-273.
rendering a reasonable interpretation and application of the procedural law.
Indeed, the procedural law must always be given a reasonable construction to 12.Id. at 95-96.
preclude absurdity in its application. 35 Hence, a literal application of the
13.Id. at 98-99.
principle governing prejudicial questions is to be eschewed if such application
would produce unjust and absurd results or unreasonable consequences. ITDHSE 14.Id. at 13-21; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with the
concurrence of Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner (later Presiding
San Miguel Properties further submits that respondents could not validly Justice/retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
raise the prejudicial question as a reason to suspend the criminal proceedings
because respondents had not themselves initiated either the action for specific 15Id. at 19-20.
performance or the criminal action. It contends that the defense of a prejudicial 16.Id. at 23-25.
question arising from the filing of a related case could only be raised by the
party who filed or initiated said related case. 17.Id. at 37-38.

The submission is unfounded. The rule on prejudicial question makes no 18.Id. at 608.
distinction as to who is allowed to raise the defense. Ubi lex non distinguit nec 19.Id. at 609-610.
nos distinguere debemos. When the law makes no distinction, we ought not to
distinguish. 36 20.Id. at 504-523.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 21.Id. at 522.
24, 2004 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP NO. 73008; and ORDERS 22.People v. Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 148193, January 16, 2003, 395 SCRA 366, 369.
petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
23.Beltran v. People , G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000, 334 SCRA 106, 110.
SO ORDERED.
24.Section 25. Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of
Sereno, C.J., Villarama, Jr., Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, * JJ., concur. the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except
those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of
Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a
Footnotes mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the
title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the
*Vice Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, who is on official trip for the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order
Court to attend the Southeast Asia Regional Judicial Colloquium on Gender that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to
Equality Jurisprudence and the Role of the Judiciary in Promoting Women's the buyer in accordance herewith.
Access to Justice, in Bangkok, Thailand, per Special Order No. 1529 dated
August 29, 2013. 25.Under Presidential Decree No. 1344 (entitled Empowering the National Housing
Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decision under
1.Entitled Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Presidential Decree No. 957), the National Housing Authority, the
Penalties for Violation Thereof (July 12, 1976). predecessor of the HLURB, was vested with original jurisdiction, as follows:

2.Rollo , p. 442. Section 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and
business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No.
3.Id. at 137-172. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases of the following nature:
4.Id. at 61.
(a) Unsound real estate business practices;
5.Id. at 123.
(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
6.Id. at 420-428.
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker
7.Id. at 178-181. or salesman; and

8.Id. at 215-217. (c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
9.Id. at 253. against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. (Emphasis
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 supplied)

26.Black's Law Dictionary.

27.Ayala Life Assurance, Inc. v. Ray Burton Development Corporation, G.R. No.
163075, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 462, 469.

28.Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary v. Orola, G.R. No. 169790, April
30, 2008, 553 SCRA 578, 585.
29.Co Chien v. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc., G.R. No. 162090, January 31,
2007, 513 SCRA 570, 577-578.
30.Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 747, 752.

31.Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National Housing Authority, No. L-50444, August

31, 1987, 153 SCRA 399, 407.
32.Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 88550, April 18, 1990,
184 SCRA 426, 431-432.

33.Provident Tree Farms, Inc. v. Batario, Jr., G.R. No. 92285, March 28, 1994, 231
SCRA 463, 469-470; Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 93173,
September 15, 1993, 226 SCRA 438, 442-443; Presidential Commission on
Good Government v. Peña, No. L-77663, April 12, 1988, 159 SCRA 556, 567-
568; Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil.
932, 941 (1954).
34.Rollo , p. 49.

35.Millares v. National Labor Relations Commission , G.R. No. 110524, July 29,
2002, 385 SCRA 306, 316.
36.Yu v. Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 421, 428.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com