G.R. No. 184482 - Bethel Realty and Development Corp. vs. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

On 3 March 1994, petitioner Bethel Realty and Development Corporation sold a parcel of land in Taytay, Rizal to private respondents, spouses Nemesio and Marjorie Visaya.
The parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale upon full payment of the purchase price on 24 March 1997; however, the petitioner failed to deliver the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) despite several demands.

Marjorie Visaya sought assistance from the HLURB after the petitioner’s repeated failure to deliver the TCT.
The HLURB Legal Services Group endorsed her verified letter (dated 16 September 1999) to the appropriate field office which treated it as a verified complaint.
A summons was issued on 16 November 1999 to the petitioner’s president/general manager, and on 23 December 1999, the petitioner was declared in default for failure to answer the complaint.

On 8 September 2000, HLURB rendered a decision in HLURB Case No. REM-102599-10727 ordering the petitioner to immediately deliver the TCT.
The decision also noted additional irregularities on the part of the petitioner such as a failure to secure proper licensing for the project, non-development of the subdivision as required by law, and other defects involving the project’s easement and overall compliance.
In case of non-compliance, the decision provided that the petitioner must refund the total amount paid plus interest and damages, with specific monetary penalties imposed (damages of P20,000.00 and an administrative fine of P10,000.00).

The Regional Trial Court sheriff in Antipolo City attempted to implement the HLURB decision via the issuance of a Writ of Execution, but was unable to locate the petitioner’s exact address.
This difficulty in implementation added further complications to the enforcement of the HLURB’s ruling.

The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Injunction on 29 October 2003 (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80225) seeking to nullify the HLURB decision and associated documents; however, the petition was dismissed for non-compliance since crucial pleadings and documents were not attached, in violation of Sections 1, Rule 65 and 3, Rule 46 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.
A re-filed petition on 5 March 2004 (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82579) was submitted with the required documents; nevertheless, these documents were not duplicate originals or certified true copies, leading the Court of Appeals on 11 March 2004 to issue a Resolution ordering the petitioner to submit clear and legible duplicate originals or certified true copies within five days.
Despite partial compliance, subsequent submissions revealed further deficiencies (e.g., mere machine copies in lieu of certified true copies), prompting additional warnings and a second order on 1 June 2004.
On 17 November 2004, the Court granted a TRO against the enforcement of the HLURB decision, and on 21 December 2007, it granted the petition by annulling and setting aside the HLURB decision.
However, following a Motion for Reconsideration by the respondents on 16 September 2008, the Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision on 26 May 2008, which reinstated the HLURB decision and denied the petitioner’s petition, based on its failure to indicate when it received or was informed of the adverse decision.

The petitioner’s failure to attach complete and correct documentation as required by Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 was noted on multiple occasions.
Specifically, the petitioner did not indicate the “material date” when it received notice of the HLURB decision, a requirement meant to ensure that the petition for certiorari is filed within the prescribed 60-day period.
Evidence showed that a certified true copy of the HLURB decision had been secured on 12 August 2003; however, the petition was ultimately filed well beyond the 60-day period, a factor that contributed significantly to the petition’s dismissal.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to indicate the material date (i.e., the date it received notice of the HLURB decision) rendered its petition for certiorari untimely and non-compliant with Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the submission of mere machine copies instead of certified true copies of required documents justified the dismissal of the petition.

Whether certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy considering that administrative remedies under the HLURB rules were available to the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner’s choice of remedy was appropriate in light of its procedural errors.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the rule that the petition must indicate the date of receipt of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, to safeguard the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case.
Whether the alleged lack of service of the decision could excuse the petitioner’s non-compliance with the express requirement of stating the material date.