Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spouses Genato v. Viola
Spouses Genato v. Viola
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO , J : p
When there is a con ict between the title of the case and the allegations in the
complaint, the latter prevail in determining the parties to the action. Jurisprudence
directs us to look beyond the form and into the substance so as to render substantial
justice to the parties and determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the
controversy with least regard to technicalities. HaDEIc
In the present Petition for Review, petitioners assail the September 9, 2005
Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89466 which a rmed the
Decision of the O ce of the President. The O ce of the President a rmed the
Decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), First Division which
granted the motion to quash the writ of execution issued in HLURB Case No. REM-
102491-4959 (REM-A-950426-0059).
Factual Antecedents
In October 1991, a complaint titled "VILLA REBECCA HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. versus MR. WILLIAM GENATO and spouse REBECCA GENATO" was
led with the HLURB. The said complaint was veri ed by 34 individuals, including the
respondent herein, who referred to themselves as the "Complainants" who "caused the
preparation of the foregoing Complaint". 2 The complaint stated that on various dates,
complainants executed Contracts to Sell and/or Lease Purchase Agreements with the
Sps. Genato pertaining to housing units in Villa Rebecca Homes Subdivision. Sometime
thereafter the HLURB issued a cease and desist order (CDO) enjoining the collection of
amortization payments. This CDO was subsequently lifted. Thereafter, complainants
went to the Sps. Genato with the intention of resuming their amortization payments.
The latter however refused to accept their payments and instead demanded for a lump
sum payment of all the accrued amortizations which fell due during the effectivity of the
CDO.
From the disorganized, bordering on incomprehensible, complaint, it can be
gleaned that the following reliefs are prayed for: 1) That Sps. Genato accept the
complainants' monthly amortization payments corresponding to the period of
effectivity of the (subsequently lifted) CDO, without any penalty; 2) That the
computation of interest on delinquent payments be at 3% per month and not
compounded; 3) That Sps. Genato be responsible for correcting the de ciencies in the
construction and replacement of sub-standard materials to conform with the plans and
speci cations; 4) That Sps. Genato be held answerable/liable to make good their
undertaking to provide individual deep wells for the homeowners; 5) That Sps. Genato
be responsible for maintaining the street lights and payment of the corresponding
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
electric bills; 6) That Sps. Genato maintain the contract price of the units for sale and
not increase the prices; and 7) That Sps. Genato be made accountable for the
unregistered dwelling units.
On March 8, 1995, the Housing Arbiter rendered a Decision, the dispositive
portion of which states: CcSTHI
On appeal to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, the Decision was modi ed,
inter alia, by the additional directive for the complainants to pay 3% interest per month
for the unpaid amortizations due from June 29, 1991. The dispositive portion of the
Decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Arbiter is hereby
MODIFIED to read as follows:
Number 2.d to 2.e [sic] must be complied with within thirty (30) days
from finality of this decision. CSIDTc
SO ORDERED. 4
This Decision, after being revised and then reinstated, subsequently became nal
and executory.
On May 26, 2000, Arbiter Marino Bernardo M. Torres issued the Writ of
Execution. In connection therewith, the sheriff seized Rita Viola's two delivery trucks
and 315 sacks of rice. Respondent Viola then led an Urgent Motion to Quash
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Execution, with Prayers for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Clari cation and
Computation of Correct Amount of Money Judgment and Allowance of Appeal.
After various incidents and pleadings by the opposing parties, the two trucks
were ordered released. The 315 sacks of rice, however, were sold at public auction to
the highest bidder, 5 petitioner Rebecca Genato in the amount of P189,000.00. 6
On December 15, 2000, Arbiter Torres issued an Order denying respondent
Viola's motion to quash the writ of execution and directed her to pay the Sps. Genato
the amount of P739,133.31. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion to quash writ of execution
is hereby DENIED.
Movant Rita Viola is hereby directed to pay to the respondents the amount
of P739,133.31 in payment of their amortizations up to August 2000.
The bond posted by the movant in compliance with the directive of this
Office is likewise ordered cancelled.
SO ORDERED. 7
Viola appealed the said Order and on January 10, 2003, the HLURB, First Division
rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the movants' respective Motions to
Quash the Writ of Execution are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Orders dated
December 15, [2000] are hereby SET ASIDE. The respondents are directed to credit
as payment the value of the 315 sacks of rice in the amount of P318,500.00,
which were seized and auctioned to the account of movant Viola.
SO ORDERED. 8 TDCAIS
The Sps. Genato appealed the said Decision to the O ce of the President. On
November 8, 2004, the O ce of the President a rmed in toto the Decision of the
HLURB, First Division. The motion for reconsideration led by the Sps. Genato was
denied. They thus elevated the case to the CA. As previously mentioned, the CA
affirmed the Decision of the Office of the President and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
decision dated November 4, 2004 and resolution dated March 31, 2005 of the
Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 03-B-057 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 9
The Sps. Genato no longer led a motion for reconsideration, they instead led
the present petition for review.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues:
1. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE HLURB HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON OF RESPONDENT RITA VIOLA.
Petitioners' Arguments
Petitioners contend that the CA erred in applying the case of Duero v. Court of
Appeals, 1 1 which held that the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be
waived. They submit that "jurisdiction of the court over an action" is different from
"jurisdiction over the person". They say that the latter was what the HLURB was
referring to because it stated that Rita Viola was never impleaded. They contend that
jurisdiction over the person can be conferred by consent expressly or impliedly given,
as in the case of Rita Viola. SEHaDI
Petitioners also assert that the HLURB Decision subject of the writ of execution
has long been nal and executory, hence, said Decision can no longer be modi ed. They
further assert that the execution of the said Decision is a ministerial duty of the HLURB.
Petitioners further argue that the best evidence of the value of the 315 sacks of
rice seized and auctioned off is the Sheriff's Certi cate of Sale; hence the Board's ruling
crediting to the account of Viola an amount other than that stated in the Certi cate of
Sale has no sound basis.
Finally, the petitioners contend that the ndings and conclusions of an
adjudicative body resulting from an erroneous application of law are not binding on the
appellate courts.
Respondent's Arguments
On the other hand, respondent contends that the HLURB did not acquire
jurisdiction over her person since she was not a party to the case; hence, the HLURB
decision is a nullity as against her and therefore never acquired nality. With a void
judgment, the resultant execution was likewise void.
She also argues that, since the levy and auction were illegal, the correct valuation
of the 315 sacks of rice is not the price paid at the auction but its actual value of
P318,500.00.
Our Ruling
The petition has merit.
At the outset, it is worth mentioning that except for respondent Rita Viola, all the
other individual members/buyers/owners of the respective housing units have already
paid and settled their obligations with Sps. Genato. 1 2 Hence, in the present case we
only focus on the matters involving Rita Viola.
For a more orderly presentation, we address the fourth issue raised by petitioners
first.
Non-applicability of the doctrine
on the binding effect of findings of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
facts and conclusions of an
adjudicative body
Indeed ndings of fact and conclusions of an adjudicative body like the HLURB,
which can be considered as a trier of facts on speci c matters within its eld of
expertise, should be considered as binding and conclusive upon the appellate courts.
This is in addition to the fact that it was in a better position to assess and evaluate the
credibility of the contending parties and the validity of their respective evidence.
However, these doctrines hold true only when such ndings and conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence. 1 3 EcAHDT
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 141-152; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
2. Rollo, pp. 47-53.
3. Id. at 56.
4. Id. at 59.
5. There was one other bidder, Mr. Manuel Rigo, whose bid amounted to only P173,250.00.
6. CA rollo, p. 64.
7. Id. at 71.
8. Rollo, p. 80.
9. Id. at 45.
10. Id. at 199.
11. 424 Phil. 12, 25 (2002).
12. Rollo, p. 17.
13. Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National Labor Relations Commission,
311 Phil. 744, 756 (1995).
14. See Almuete v. Andres, 421 Phil. 522, 531 (2001); See also Leonardo v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 125485, September 13, 2004, 438 SCRA 201, 214.
15. Vlason Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 269, 304 (1999).
16. Section 3. Nature of the Proceedings. — Proceedings before the Board shall be
summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in the courts of law.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
The Rules of Court shall not apply in said proceedings except in suppletory character
and whenever practicable. Appearance by counsel is optional. (1987 HLURB Rules)
17. Section 4 of the 1987 HLURB Rules.
18. Vlason Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14.
19. Sec. 4. of the Rules of Court states: "Formal amendments. — A defect in the designation
of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily
corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided
no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party".
20. Cf. Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-55687, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 783.
21. Cf. Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53820, June 15, 1992, 209 SCRA
763.
22. Article 1431 of the Civil Code states: "Through estoppel an admission or representation
is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as
against the person relying thereon".
23. Zamora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78206, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 279, 283-284.
24. See Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242,
August 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 170, 186; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Evangelista,
441 Phil 445, 453 (2002).
25. Arnado v. Buban, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1543, May 31, 2004, 430 SCRA 382, 386.
26. Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, supra note 24; Bank of
the Philippine Islands v. Sps. Evangelista, supra note 24.
27. Rollo, pp. 63-65.
28. Id. at 56-59.
29. Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156364, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 74, 95; Peña v.
Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 159520, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA
383, 404.
30. Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., supra.
31. De Luna v. Pascual, G.R. No. 144218, July 14, 2006, 495 SCRA 42, 58.