Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • VIVE EAGLE LAND, INC., PETITIONER, vs. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION

    Uploaded by

    Abe Puntual
    272 views2 pages
    This is an Action for Declaration of Nullity of Rescission, and Suspension of Payment of purchase price and interest against NHMFC instituted by Vive Eagle Land, Inc., because of the Maceda Law of which the latter invoked before the Court of its applicability in the instant case.

    Original Title

    VIVE EAGLE LAND, INC., PETITIONER, vs. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This is an Action for Declaration of Nullity of Rescission, and Suspension of Payment of purchase price and interest against NHMFC instituted by Vive Eagle Land, Inc., because of the Maceda Law of which the latter invoked before the Court of its applicability in the instant case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    272 views2 pages

    VIVE EAGLE LAND, INC., PETITIONER, vs. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION

    Uploaded by

    Abe Puntual
    This is an Action for Declaration of Nullity of Rescission, and Suspension of Payment of purchase price and interest against NHMFC instituted by Vive Eagle Land, Inc., because of the Maceda Law of which the latter invoked before the Court of its applicability in the instant case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ________________________________________________________________

    VIVE EAGLE LAND, INC., PETITIONER, vs. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE


    FINANCE CORPORATION, JOSEPH PETER S. SISON, AND CAVACON
    CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
    G.R. No. 230817, September 04, 2019
    PONENTE: PERALTA, J.: THIRD DIVISION
    ________________________________________________________________

    Nature of Action:

    This is an Action for Declaration of Nullity of Rescission, and Suspension of


    Payment of purchase price and interest against NHMFC instituted by Vive Eagle
    Land, Inc., because of the Maceda Law of which the latter invoked before the
    Court of its applicability in the instant case.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Vive Eagle Land, Inc., a corporation engaged in the realty business
    filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of rescission, declaration of suspension
    of payment of purchase price and interest, and other reliefs against respondents
    National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) and Cavacon
    Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of construction.

    In its complaint, Vive alleged that it entered into a Deed of Sale of Rights,
    Interests, and Participation Over Foreclosed Assets, whereby it agreed to
    purchase NHMFC's rights, interests, and participation in the foreclosed property
    of Alyansa ng mga Maka-Maralitang Asosasyon at Kapatirang Organisasyon,
    Inc. located in Angeles City, with an area of 73.5 hectares for a total purchase
    price of P40 million payable in installment with 20% downpayment plus 14%
    interest per annum.

    Vive, however, did not pay the subsequent installments. According to Vive, it
    failed to pay because it was prevented from exercising its right to avail of a
    developmental loan under Section 8 of the Deed of Sale due to issues on the
    subject property, particularly: (1) the issuance of numerous certificates of land
    awards over the same; and (2) the classification of the same as agricultural,
    subjecting it to the coverage of the CARP.

    While awaiting the resolution of said issues, Vive requested NHMFC for a
    moratorium or suspension of the period of payment. The NHMFC, through its
    then President initially agreed on the moratorium but advised Vive to submit its
    request of waiver and interest reduction to the NHMFC's Board of Directors.

    Notwithstanding the agreement, NHMFC notified Vive through a letter of the


    rescission and/or revocation of the Deed of Sale due to the alleged non-payment
    of the balance of the purchase price. Moreover, since Vive was well aware of the
    condition of the property prior to its purchase, it was not justified in suspending its
    payment of the purchase price.

    Vive amended its complaint arguing that without its knowledge and consent,
    NHMFC and Cavacon, in bad faith, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement by
    virtue of which NHMFC sold the subject property.
    The RTC of Makati City dismissed Vive's complaint, finding NHMFC's rescission
    of the Deed of Sale to be valid. On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision of the
    RTC.

    The Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied by the Court for failure to
    sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment of the CA to
    warrant the exercise of discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

    Vive filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the Court take a second look
    at the circumstances of the case. Aside from reiterating its arguments in the
    Petition, Vive alleged for the first time that since the Deed of Sale contemplates
    the sale of two (2) parcels of land which are not classified as commercial or
    industrial, the payment for which is to be made in installments, the Court should
    take judicial notice of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6552, known as the Realty
    Installment Buyer Act or the Maceda Law.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the R.A. Act No. 6562 otherwise known as the Realty Installment
    Buyer Act or Maceda Law is applicable in the present case in view of the fact that
    NHMFC's cancellation failed to comply with the Act's mandatory twin
    requirements of a notarized notice of cancellation and a refund of the cash
    surrender value, the Deed of Sale remains valid and subsisting.

    Held:

    Negative. The Court cannot apply the provisions of the Maceda Law to the
    present case. The contract to sell herein is between Vive, a corporation engaged
    in the realty business, and NHMFC, a government corporation mandated to
    increase the availability of loans for Filipinos who seek to acquire their own
    homes by operating a secondary market for home mortgages.

    As such, it is rather obvious that the contract before Us is not the kind of onerous
    contract of adhesion under the Maceda Law drawn up by private real estate
    developers designed to entrap innocent low-income earners by requiring
    installment payments for several years only to be forfeited by the former upon
    failure to make a single payment. In fact, Vive, the buyer of the subject property,
    has been insisting that it was an essential consideration of the contract for Vive
    to be able to use the property as collateral for a loan to develop the same into a
    residential subdivision. It cannot be denied, therefore, that Vive is not the
    "innocent, low-income buyer" that the Maceda Law was enacted to protect.
    Neither is NHMFC the "real estate developer" that said law intends to regulate in
    order to prevent the enjoyment of any unnecessary exploitation. To repeat, the
    Maceda law was enacted to remedy the plight of low and middle-income lot
    buyers, save them from the exacting default clauses in real estate sales, and
    assure them of a home they can call their own. The law seeks to address the
    acute housing shortage problem in our country that has prompted thousands of
    middle- and lower-class buyers of houses, lots and condominium units to enter
    into all sorts of contracts with private housing developers involving installment
    schemes.

    You might also like