Responden - T - Jt.. - ? C - X: Third Division
Responden - T - Jt.. - ? C - X: Third Division
$upreme ~ourt
:fflanila
THIRD DIVISION
Promulgated:
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybanez and
Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 43-52.
2
Id. at 54-55.
UY
Decision 2 G.R. No. 207133
All other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed for lack
of merit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
3
Id. at 75-79.
4
Id. at 78-79.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 207133
Wherefore, the decision of the Office below is set aside and a new
decision is rendered as follows:
SO ORDERED.6
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the
HLURB Board of Commissioners in a Resolution7 dated June 14, 2007.
5
Id. at 66-68.
6
Id. at 67-68.
7
Id. at 71-73.
8
Id. at 80-82.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 207133
xxxx
Accordingly, the [petitioner] had only four (4) days from receipt
on 23 July 2007 of HLURB Resolution dated 14 June 2007, or until 27
July 2007 to file the Notice of Appeal before this Office. However,
[petitioner] filed its appeal only on 7 August 2007 or eleven (11) days late.
Thus, this Office need not delve on the merits of the appeal filed as
the records clearly show that the said appeal was filed out of time.
SO ORDERED.9
was more inclined to agree with the earlier decision of the HLURB
ENCRFO as it was more in accord with facts, law and jurisprudence relevant
to the case. Thus:
SO ORDERED.11
SO ORDERED.13
11
Id. at 61. (Emphasis in the original)
12
Id. at 62-64.
13
Id. at 51. (Emphasis in the original)
Decision 6 G.R. No. 207133
In essence, the issues are: (1) whether petitioners appeal was timely
filed before the OP; and (2) whether rescission of the contract is proper in
the instant case.
14
Id. at 23.
15
393 Phil. 697 (2000).
16
467 Phil. 190 (2004).
17
521 Phil. 146 (2006).
18
Section 15. Decision. The case shall be decided within thirty (30) days from the time the same is
submitted for decision. The Decision may order the revocation of the registration of the subdivision or
condominium project, the suspension, cancellation, or revocation of the license to sell and/or forfeiture, in
whole or in part, of the performance bond mentioned in Section 6 hereof. In case forfeiture of the bond is
ordered, the Decision may direct the provincial or city engineer to undertake or cause the construction of
roads and other requirements for the subdivision or condominium as stipulated in the bond, chargeable to
the amount forfeited. Such decision shall be immediately executory and shall become final after the lapse
of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Decision.
19
REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
20
Section 2. The decision of the National Housing Authority shall become final and executory after
the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt. It is appealable only to the President of the
Philippines and in the event the appeal is filed and the decision is not reversed and/or amended within a
period of thirty (30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. Proof of the appeal of the decision must be
furnished the National Housing Authority.
21
EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 207133
longer reglementary period, the same shall prevail over the thirty-day
period provided for in the administrative order. This is in line with the rule
in statutory construction that an administrative rule or regulation, in order
to be valid, must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the
enabling law.
We note that indeed there are special laws that mandate a shorter
period of fifteen (15) days within which to appeal a case to public
respondent. First, Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 957 provides that
the decisions of the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall become final
and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt
of the decision. Second, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1344 states
that decisions of the National Housing Authority shall become final and
executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from the date of its receipt.
The latter decree provides that the decisions of the NHA is appealable
only to the Office of the President. Further, we note that the regulatory
functions of NHA relating to housing and land development has been
transferred to Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, now known as
HLURB. x x x22
22
SGMC Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, supra note 15, at 703-704.
23
PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING APPEALS TO THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 207133
harmless and trivial technicalities that litigants can just discard and disregard
at will. Neither being a natural right nor a part of due process, the rule is
settled that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege which may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law.24
Time and again, we have held that rules of procedure exist for a noble
purpose, and to disregard such rules, in the guise of liberal construction,
would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as
mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a
party.25 The reason for the liberal application of the rules before quasi-
judicial agencies cannot be used to perpetuate injustice and hamper the just
resolution of the case. Neither is the rule on liberal construction a license to
disregard the rules of procedure.26
Second, Article 1191 of the Civil Code sanctions the right to rescind
the obligation in the event that specific performance becomes impossible, to
wit:
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.
24
J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. v. Ang, G.R. No. 174149, September 8, 2010, 630 SCRA 334, 343.
25
Po v. Dampal, 622 Phil. 523, 529 (2009).
26
Loon v. Power Master, Inc., G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 440, 453.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 207133
for the court to determine the period of compliance, the court shall decree
the rescission.27
In the instant case, the CA aptly found that the completion date of the
condominium unit was November 1998 pursuant to License No. 97-12-3202
dated November 2, 1997 but was extended to December 1999 as per License
to Sell No. 99-05-3401 dated May 8, 1999. However, at the time of the
ocular inspection conducted by the HLURB ENCRFO, the unit was not yet
completely finished as the kitchen cabinets and fixtures were not yet
installed and the agreed amenities were not yet available. Said inspection
report states:
May 3, 2002:
1. The unit of the [respondent] is Unit 3007, which was labeled as P2-07,
at the Palace of Makati, located at the corner of P. Burgos Street and
Caceres Street, Poblacion, Makati City. Based on the approved plans,
the said unit is at the 26th Floor.
a. The delivered unit has high density fiber (HDF) floorings instead
of narra wood parquet.
c. Walls are newly painted by the respondent and the alleged obvious
signs of cladding could not be determined.
27
Spouses Velarde v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 360, 373 (2001)
Decision 10 G.R. No. 207133 .
SO ORDERED.
~PERALTA
stice
WE CONCUR:
'-
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
-- Associate Justice
28
Rollo, pp. 76-77.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 207133
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
PRESBITE
CERTIFICATION