Jestra Development and Management Corporation vs. Pacifico
Jestra Development and Management Corporation vs. Pacifico
*
G.R. No. 167452. January 30, 2007.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
1 Rollo, p. 48.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
414
_______________
2 Id., at p. 6.
3 Id., at p. 51.
415
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
4 Id., at p. 59.
5 Id., at p. 58.
416
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
6 Id., at p. 57.
7 Id., at pp. 60-63.
8 Id., at p. 64.
9 Id., at p. 65.
417
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
_______________
418
_______________
13 Id., at p. 86.
14 Id., at pp. 88-89.
419
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
By Resolution of January 15
27, 2003, the HLURB Board of
Commissioners
16
denied Jestra’s motion for reconsideration.
By Order of December 9, 2003, the Office of the President
(OP), to which the case was elevated, adopted “by reference
the findings of facts and conclusions of law” contained in
the HLURB
17
Board Resolution of January 27, 2003. And by
Order dated March 18, 2004, it denied Jestra’s motion for
reconsideration.
On Jestra’s petition for review under Rule 43 of the 18
Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals (CA), by Decision
dated January 31, 2005, affirmed the Orders of the OP.
Its motion19
for reconsideration having been denied by CA
Resolution of March 16, 2005, Jestra (hereafter petitioner)
comes before this Court on a petition for review, faulting
the appellate court for:
_______________
420
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
the seller has under the Act the option to cancel the
contract due to non-payment of installments, he must
afford the buyer a grace period to pay them and, if at least
two years installments have already been paid, to refund
the cash surrender value of the payments. Thus Section of
the Act provides:
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 20.
422
_______________
21 G.R. No. 152346, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 247, 257.
423
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
——o0o——
_______________
22 Rollo, p. 110.
424
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
9/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 513
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174681c7e3b07e5b944003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12