AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Factora
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sevenis Enterprises, Inc. (Sevenis), the owner of a parcel of land, engaged Jesus R. Factora as contractor to construct a condominium building. To finance the project, Sevenis obtained a loan from Fund Centrum Finance, Inc. (Fund Centrum), secured by a mortgage on the property. Sevenis also had an outstanding obligation to Factora for contractor's fees. In June 1985, Sevenis, Fund Centrum, and Factora entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to settle these obligations. Under the MOA, Sevenis executed a dacion en pago in favor of Fund Centrum for its loan, while Factora's contractor's lien was recognized, with an agreement for the assignment of three 2-bedroom units from the project to satisfy Sevenis's debt to him. Fund Centrum subsequently sold the condominium to Supreme Capital, Inc., which then entered into a Contract to Sell with MCI Real Estate and Development Corporation. MCI leased the property, including the units assigned to Factora, to AMA Computer College (AMA). Procedural History: Prompted by AMA's conversion of the condominium, which included his assigned units, Jesus R. Factora filed two complaints with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for the recovery of condominium certificates of title and damages. These complaints were consolidated. The OAALA dismissed the complaints for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed the OAALA's decision. Factora then appealed to the Office of the President, which, in a Resolution dated May 21, 1997, granted the appeal, set aside the HLURB decision, and remanded the records for final adjudication. AMA Computer College filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed AMA's petition on August 12, 1998. AMA's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: AMA Computer College, Inc. filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. The sole issue raised is whether the HLURB possesses jurisdiction over the consolidated cases filed by Factora. AMA contends that Factora, not having acquired ownership of the subject condominium units, is not a condominium buyer under P.D. 957 and therefore the HLURB lacks jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, affirming that Factora, having acquired the units for a valuable consideration through assignment in satisfaction of an indebtedness, qualifies as a buyer under P.D. 957, and that the HLURB has jurisdiction over claims for specific performance of contractual obligations by buyers against condominium owners.
Issue(s)
Whether the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction over the consolidated cases filed by respondent Factora; and whether respondent Factora qualifies as a 'buyer' within the contemplation of P.D. 957.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 12, 1998, in CA-GR SP No. 44472, is AFFIRMED. The records of the case are remanded to the HLURB for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the HLURB and Factora's qualification as a buyer: Section 1 of P.D. 1344 expanded the jurisdiction of the HLURB under P.D. 957 to include claims by condominium buyers against project owners, developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen, and cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers against the same parties. The term 'buyer' under P.D. 957 is defined broadly to encompass any contract to buy, purchase, or otherwise acquire for a valuable consideration a condominium unit. This definition is not limited to those who enter into contracts of sale but includes anyone who acquires a unit for valuable consideration. Therefore, a buyer seeking to enforce an obligation arising from such a transaction or claiming damages may bring an action with the HLURB. The Court found that respondent Factora is a buyer within the contemplation of P.D. 957 because he acquired the three condominium units as an assignment in payment for Sevenis' indebtedness, which clearly constitutes a valuable consideration. The extinguishment of Sevenis' indebtedness vested upon respondent Factora the right to own the said units. Furthermore, even if petitioner's theory that respondent is not the owner were to be considered, it does not preclude the HLURB from exercising its jurisdiction, as cases for specific performance of contractual obligations against condominium owners filed by buyers fall within its competence and expertise, as emphasized in Arranza vs. B.F. Homes, Inc., which highlighted that P.D. 957 was promulgated to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums and to provide an appropriate government agency for parties aggrieved in the implementation of its provisions and enforcement of contractual rights.
Main Doctrine
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction over claims filed by a buyer against a project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman, and cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman, as defined under P.D. 957. The term 'buyer' is broad enough to include those who acquire a condominium unit for a valuable consideration, even if not through a direct contract of sale.