Title
Antipolo Realty Corp. vs. National Housing Authority
Case
G.R. No. L-50444
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1987
Yuson suspended payments due to Antipolo Realty's failure to complete subdivision improvements. NHA upheld Yuson's rights, rejecting rescission and forfeiture claims. Supreme Court affirmed NHA's jurisdiction and ruling, protecting buyer rights under PD 957.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50444)

Facts:

  • Contract to Sell and Beautification Clause
    • On August 18, 1970, Antipolo Realty Corporation (ARC) sold Lot No. 15, Block IV, Ponderosa Heights Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal to Jose Hernando under a Contract to Sell.
    • Clause 17 of the Contract required ARC to complete specified subdivision improvements (roads, drainage, water, electrical, landscaping, park, security) within two years, or allow the buyer to suspend installments without penalty until completion.
  • Assignment and Suspension of Payments
    • On August 28, 1974, Hernando assigned all rights and obligations to Virgilio Yuson, who paid arrears up to August 1972 and then suspended installments due to ARC’s failure to complete improvements.
    • Yuson paid post-improvement installments only after verifying ARC’s October 1976 claim of completion; he refused to pay arrears for September 1972–October 1976.
  • Contract Rescission and Administrative Complaint
    • ARC rescinded the Contract to Sell and declared forfeiture of all payments for Yuson’s refusal to pay the alleged arrears of ₱16,994.73.
    • On May 10, 1977, Yuson filed NHA Case No. 2123; ARC’s motion to dismiss was denied (Feb 7, 1978), hearing held without ARC’s attendance, and on March 9, 1978 the NHA ordered reinstatement of the contract with conditions (statement of account, no penalty interest, 60 days to pay arrears).
  • Appeals and Supreme Court Intervention
    • ARC’s motion for reconsideration was denied (June 28, 1978); its certiorari petition to the Supreme Court was denied (Dec 11, 1978; recon. denied Jan 29, 1979).
    • Appeal to the Office of the President was dismissed (March 9, 1979). The Supreme Court then decided on the merits of ARC’s petition (G.R. No. 50444).

Issues:

  • Whether the National Housing Authority (NHA) had jurisdiction to hear and decide Yuson’s complaint.
  • Whether the NHA acted in excess of its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion.
  • Whether ARC was denied due process in the NHA proceedings.
  • Whether installments during the suspension period (September 1972–October 1976) were due, demandable, and subject to forfeiture.
  • Whether ARC could validly rescind the Contract to Sell and retain prior installment payments under Clause 7.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.