Spouses Teresita and Bienvenido Kakilala v. Conrado, Natividad, Iluminada, Romeo and Azucena, All Surnamed Faraon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Teresita and Bienvenido Kakilala (petitioners) purchased on installment a portion of land from respondents Conrado, Natividad, Iluminada, Romeo, and Azucena Faraon (respondents) through a "Contract to Sell." Petitioners paid the down payment, took possession, and built a house. Respondents later terminated their co-ownership, and a portion of the land, including the subject property, was adjudicated to respondent Conrado Faraon. Petitioners paid some monthly installments but failed to pay the balance, leading respondents to rescind the contract and send notices to vacate. Procedural History: Respondents filed an unlawful detainer case, which was dismissed. Petitioners filed an action for Specific Performance and Damages with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), which ruled in their favor, allowing them to suspend payments until development and awarding damages. The HLURB Board of Commissioners modified the decision by deleting the damages but affirming the suspension of payments. The Court of Appeals set aside the HLURB decision for want of jurisdiction, holding that the transaction was an ordinary sale and not a sale of a subdivision lot. The CA reasoned that the property was an aliquot portion of a larger tract, not yet partitioned into individual lots for public sale, and the contract lacked typical subdivision sale provisions. The CA noted that the name "Faraon Village Subdivision" on receipts did not automatically convert the transaction into a subdivision sale. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in misapprehending facts and questioning the HLURB's jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in misapprehending facts by declaring the transaction as an ordinary sale of property and not a sale of property by a subdivision owner, thereby affecting HLURB's jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in questioning the jurisdiction of the HLURB based on the nature of the transaction, specifically whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a subdivision sale.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 12 May 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 52143 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of HLURB jurisdiction regarding the nature of the sale: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the case because the petitioners' complaint before the HLURB did not allege that the lot purchased was part of a "subdivision project" as defined by PD 957. The "Contract to Sell" did not describe the property as a subdivision lot, nor did it contain provisions typical of subdivision sales. The respondents were acting as ordinary sellers of a specific lot, not as subdivision owners or developers. The Court emphasized that the mere use of the name "Faraon Village Subdivision" on the payment receipts does not automatically convert an ordinary and isolated sale of real property into a sale of a subdivision lot. On the issue of HLURB jurisdiction based on the allegations in the complaint: The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint. Because the complaint did not sufficiently allege a sale of a subdivision lot, the HLURB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving subdivision lot buyers against project owners or developers under PD 1344, could not take cognizance of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has no jurisdiction over a complaint involving an ordinary sale of real property, even if the receipts bear the name of a subdivision, if the property sold is not alleged or proven to be part of a subdivision project as defined by PD 957, and the contract does not contain provisions typical of subdivision lot sales.