ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 118822   July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 118822. July 28, 1997.]

    G.O.A.L., INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT LEGAL AFFAIRS, HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, RIZALINO SIMBILLO, WILLIAM ONG, HERMINIA MESINA, SELFA MARTINEZ, FILOMENO TENG, RAFAEL JAVIER, FERNANDO DEL MUNDO, MILDRED PAREJA, REMEDIOS LASQUETE, GEORGE CABIGAN and ARCADIO SAMPANG, Respondents.

    Felix T . De Ramos for Petitioner.

    Abelardo B. Albis for Private Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    Faced with abandonment by the first contractor of the construction of the Gemin I Condominium with only 60% having been finished, the petitioner pursued the construction of the fifth floor of the condominium. It obtained the written approval of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. To finance the construction of the fifth floor, it secured additional funding from the National Housing Authority, but with the condition that it would hold on to the condominium certificates of title of private respondents.

    Private respondents sued petitioner with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, arguing that the construction of the fifth floor was illegal; it failed to deliver the title of private respondent Filomeno Teng, and to provide adequate parking spaces for the unit owners.

    The HLURB rendered a decision ordering petitioners to stop the construction of the fifth floor, to deliver the title of private respondent Teng, and to provide adequate parking space for the unit owners. This decision was affirmed by the Office of the President and the Court of Appeals.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the construction of the fifth floor must not only have the written approval of the NHA but also the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association or the majority of the lot buyers.

    Likewise, upon full payment of the agreed price of the unit the petitioner is required to deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer. It has no right to use the certificate of title of respondent Teng as collateral for a new loan; it must be released to him as provided by law. The parking spaces are not subject to private ownership but they form part of the common area over which the condominium unit owners hold undivided interest. Petitioner alone does not own the parking area. It is owned in common by the developer and the unit owners. The private respondents should be allowed to use the parking area.

    Decision affirmed


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; OWNERSHIP; P.D. 957; SEC. 22 (ALTERATION OF PLANS); WRITTEN CONFORMITY OR CONSENT OF DULY ORGANIZED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR MAJORITY OF LOT BUYERS REQUIRED. — GOAL contends that the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the construction of the fifth floor was with the written approval of public respondent Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as required by Sec. 22 of P.D. 957 which provides — Sec. 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision. The above provision is clear. This Court does not have to tussle with legal hermeneutics in the interpretation of Sec. 22 of P.D. 957. The written approval of the National Housing Authority alone is not sufficient. It must be coupled with the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association or the majority of the lot buyers. Failing in this the construction of the fifth floor is violative of the decree invoked. The Court of Appeals simply applied the law, and correctly so.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEC. 25 (ISSUANCE OF TITLE); DELIVERY OF TITLE, REQUIRED UPON FULL PAYMENT OF AGREED PRICE. — Upon full payment of the agreed price, petitioner is mandated by law to deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer. Both the "Contract to Sell" of petitioner and private respondents, and Sec. 25 of P.D. 957 state — "Sec. III (Contract to Sell). — Title and Ownership of Unit. Upon full payment by the vendees of the full amount of the purchase price stipulated under Sec. III hereof, the assessments and expenses under Sec. IV and otherwise upon compliance by the VENDEES of all obligations therein, the VENDOR will convey to the VENDEE all rights and interests of the former and to the Unit, subject hereof together with the interest in the common area and in the Condominium Corporation appurtenant to such unit . . . ." Sec. 25. P.D. 957 — "Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit . . . . In the event a 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 corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith." Upon full payment of a unit, petitioner loses all its rights and interests to the unit in favor of the buyer. Consequently, it has no right to use the certificate of title of respondent Teng as collateral for a new loan. The title of Teng must be released to him as provided by law.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONDOMINIUM LAW; COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES; THE PARKING SPACE OWNED IN COMMON BY DEVELOPER AND UNIT OWNERS. — In a condominium, common areas and facilities are "portions of the condominium property not included in the units," whereas, a unit is "a part of the condominium property which is to be subject to private ownership." Inversely, that which is not considered a unit should fall under common areas and facilities. Hence, the parking spaces not being subject to private ownership form part of the common area over which the condominium unit owners hold undivided interest. As such, petitioner cannot invoke Sec. I, Art. III, of the Bill of Rights which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Petitioner alone does not own the parking area. The parking space is owned in common by the developer and the unit owners.


    D E C I S I O N


    BELLOSILLO, J.:


    G.O.A.L., INC. (GOAL), in this petition for review on certiorari, seeks to set aside part of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 September 1994 1 which affirmed the decision of the Office of the President Legal Affairs (OPLA) that earlier likewise affirmed the decision of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Petitioner confines its petition to the construction of the fifth floor of Gemin I Condominium and all works related thereto, including the issuance of title to private respondent Teng and providing free parking spaces for the condominium units. 2

    On 23 May 1983 GOAL and the National Housing Authority (NHA) entered into an agreement whereby NHA extended to GOAL a loan of P4.425 million for the construction of Gemin I Condominium at 941 Gonzales St., Ermita, Manila. Sometime in 1984 a "Contract Agreement" was entered into between GOAL and Matson International Corporation for the construction of the condominium within one (1) year at the cost of P4.2 million. However, in the later part of 1984, the contractor abandoned the project with only 60% of it finished. In 1985 GOAL offered the condominium units for sale with private respondents among its buyers. To remedy the situation brought about by the abandonment of the project by the first contractor, GOAL subsequently pursued the construction of the fifth floor with NHA granting additional funding on the condition that it would hold on to the condominium certificates of title of private respondents.

    In August 1989 private respondents filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA), a complaint against GOAL. Among the issues raised were the illegal construction of the fifth floor of Gemin I Condominium, the failure to deliver the title of private respondent Filomeno Teng despite his repeated demands, and the failure to provide adequate parking spaces for the unit owners.

    On 31 March 1989 OAALA rendered its decision ordering GOAL, inter alia, (a) to stop the construction of the fifth floor, (b) to deliver the title of private respondent Teng, and (c) to provide adequate parking space for the unit owners. 3

    On appeal to the Office of the President Legal Affairs (OPLA) and subsequently to the Court of Appeals, the decision rendered by the HLURB-OAALA was affirmed in toto. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition.

    Petitioner imputes error to the Court of Appeals in not finding the true facts of the case that greatly affected its decision, and its decision being contrary to law.

    GOAL contends that the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the fact that the construction of the fifth floor was with the written approval of public respondent HLURB as required by Sec. 22 of P.D. 957 which provides —

    Sec. 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision (Emphasis supplied).

    The above provision is clear. We do not have to tussle with legal hermeneutics in the interpretation of Sec. 22 of P.D. 957. The written approval of the National Housing Authority alone is not sufficient. It must be coupled with the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association or the majority of the lot buyers. Failing in this, the construction of the fifth floor is violative of the decree invoked. The Court of Appeals simply applied the law, and correctly so.

    Petitioner likewise contends that it should not have been faulted for failing to deliver the title to private respondent Teng as the proximate cause thereof was the abandonment of the construction project by the first contractor, hence, due to force majeure. 4

    We cannot sustain petitioner. There is no one else to blame but itself. Upon full payment of the agreed price, petitioner is mandated by law to deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer. Both the "Contract to Sell" of petitioner and private respondents, and Sec. 25 of P.D. 957 state —

    "Sec. III (Contract to Sell). — Title and Ownership of Unit. — Upon full payment by the vendees of the full amount of the purchase price stipulated under Sec. III hereof, the assessments and expenses under Sec. IV and otherwise upon compliance by the VENDEES of all obligations therein, the VENDOR will convey to the VENDEE all rights and interests of the former and to the Unit, subject hereof together with the interest in the common area and in the Condominium Corporation appurtenant to such unit . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Sec. 25, P.D. 957 — Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. . . . In the event a 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 corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner also attempts to justify its failure to deliver the certificate of title of private respondent Teng by claiming that it used the title as part collateral for the additional loan NHA had extended for the construction of the fifth floor.

    The Court observes the frequent allusion of petitioner to its predicament brought about by the abandonment of the project by the first contractor. But such is irrelevant in light of Sec. 25 of P.D. 957 as well as of the Contract to Sell of the parties. While we empathize with petitioner in its financial dilemma we cannot make innocent parties suffer the consequences of the former’s lack of business acumen. Upon full payment of a unit, petitioner loses all its rights and interests to the unit in favor of the buyer. Consequently, it has no right to use the certificate of title of respondent Teng as collateral for a new loan. The title of Teng must be released to him as provided by law.

    With respect to the second issue, petitioner contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals is contrary to law considering that under Sec. 12-D, No. 2, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of P.D. 957, what should be given for free are only "off-street" parking spaces and not indoor parking areas.

    Petitioner is wrong. It has for purposes of its own construed "off-street" to mean "not including indoor." On the other hand, the law does not exclude "indoor parking." What it specifically excludes is "street parking." Therefore, parking may be in the basement or, in the absence thereof, in the first floor.

    Furthermore, at this point, a definition of terms may be necessary. In a condominium, common areas and facilities are "portions of the condominium property not included in the units," whereas, a unit is "a part of the condominium property which is to be subject to private ownership." 5 Inversely, that which is not considered a unit should fall under common areas and facilities.

    Hence, the parking spaces not being subject to private ownership form part of the common area over which the condominium unit owners hold undivided interest. As such, petitioner cannot invoke Sec. I, Art. III, of the Bill of Rights which provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Petitioner alone does not own the parking area. The parking space is owned in common by the developer and the unit owners. Private respondents must be allowed to use the parking area.

    Finally, petitioner contends that the payment of P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages plus P5,000.00 as a attorney’s fees is too much of a penalty. However, the Court of Appeals upheld these awards holding that —

    In the light of the foregoing premises, we sense no error in the award of attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, and administrative fines against petitioner. This is allowed by the provisions of civil law and under Secs. 38 and 39 of P.D. 957:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sec. 38. Administrative Fines. — The Authority may prescribe and impose fines not exceeding ten thousand pesos for violations of the provisions of this Decree or any rule or regulation thereunder. Fines shall be payable to the Authority and enforceable through writs of execution in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court.

    Sec. 39. Penalties. — Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that may be issued pursuant to this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not more than ten years: Provided, that in the case of corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the President, manager, or Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. 6

    Petitioner can hardly be excused for its failure to comply with the provisions of P.D. 957 by claiming ignorance of the requirements of the decree and that a "mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith." Being engaged in a business affected by P.D. 957, petitioner should be aware of its provisions and its mandates which, as can be readily perceived, are clear, simple and unmistakable. 7

    WHEREFORE, finding no error in the Decision sought to be reviewed, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. CA-G.R. SP No. 31082, Decision penned by Justice Alfredo L. Benipayo, concurred in by Justices Ricardo P. Galvez and Eugenio S. Labitoria; Rollo, pp. 8-17.

    2. Petition, p. 7; Rollo, p. 27.

    3. Decision, HLURB Case No. REM-191587-3284, pp. 12-13.

    4. Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 30.

    5. Alberto Ferrer and Karl Stecher, LAW ON CONDOMINIUM, Vol. 1, p. 300.

    6. See Note 1, p. 16.

    7. Id., p. 16-17.

    G.R. No. 118822   July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED