Azarcon v. Housing and Land Use Arbiter Bunagan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Wenonah L. Marquez Azarcon entered into a contract to sell with respondents Sagana Construction and Development Corporation and J. M. Builders for a house and lot. Azarcon paid an initial amount, with the balance to be paid via an SSS housing loan. The loan was disapproved partly due to Sagana's failure to submit required documents, including the property title. Azarcon offered to pay the balance in cash, but Sagana refused unless interest was paid. Azarcon filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Procedural History: The HLURB Arbiter ordered Azarcon to pay the balance and Sagana to deliver the Deed of Sale and title. Sagana appealed, seeking rentals and interest. The HLURB Board of Commissioners initially ordered Azarcon to pay the balance, interest, and rentals. Upon reconsideration, the Board deleted the interest but ordered Azarcon to pay the balance within fifteen days, with interest thereafter if unpaid, and to pay monthly rentals from the time of occupancy until full payment. These rentals were to form part of the purchase price. The decision became final and executory. Azarcon paid the balance, but Sagana refused to deliver the title, demanding rentals. Sagana filed a motion for execution for rentals, while Azarcon filed a motion for execution to compel the delivery of the title. The Arbiter denied Azarcon's motion and granted Sagana's, issuing a Writ of Execution for rentals. The HLURB Board denied Azarcon's motion for reconsideration. Azarcon then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing the Writ of Execution varied the Board's decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding the Writ of Execution consistent with the Board's decision. The Petition: Azarcon seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing it erred in interpreting the HLURB Board's decision as ordering liability for both the balance of the purchase price and rentals, contrary to the dispositive portion. She contends the rentals were meant as an equitable payment to be applied to the balance, not an additional charge. She also argues the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Board's finding that she was aware of liability for both the balance and rentals. Azarcon's petition is filed via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Writ of Execution was in accordance with the HLURB decision, specifically regarding the interpretation of rental payments. Whether the HLURB Arbiter, in issuing the Writ of Execution for rentals after the balance of the purchase price was paid, varied the terms of the HLURB Board's final and executory decision, constituting a grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, and upheld petitioner Azarcon's position that the Writ of Execution varied the terms of the HLURB decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Writ of Execution regarding rental payments: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred. The HLURB Board's decision intended the rentals to be an equitable payment for the use of the premises, applicable to the balance of the purchase price, not an additional obligation. The rentals were an "interim scheme" until a substitute payment method was agreed upon. Azarcon was not responsible for the delay in loan release, hence the deletion of interest. The Board intended rentals to form part of the adjusted purchase price, not a separate obligation. Azarcon fully paid the balance on July 22, 1993, rendering the rental payment provision functus officio. Enforcing rentals after full payment would be unjust and disregard equity. On the issue of whether the HLURB Arbiter varied the HLURB Board's decision by enforcing rental payments after the balance was paid: The Court found that the Arbiter's order and Writ of Execution varied the terms of the final decision, constituting a grave abuse of discretion. The payment of rentals was an equitable measure to be applied to the balance of the purchase price, and once the balance was fully paid, this interim measure ceased to have effect. To enforce payment of rentals after the balance was paid was in error.
Main Doctrine
The payment of rentals, as an equitable measure to be applied to the balance of the purchase price, becomes functus officio once the balance of the purchase price has been fully paid, and a writ of execution enforcing payment of such rentals would vary the terms of the final and executory decision.