Case Digest (G.R. No. 96494)
Facts:
Casa Filipina Development Corporation v. The Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila, and Jose Valenzuela, Jr., G.R. No. 96494, May 28, 1992, First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Casa Filipina Development Corporation sold Lot 8, Block 9, Phase II, Casa Filipina, Sucat II, Paranaque to private respondent Jose Valenzuela, Jr. under a contract to sell dated May 2, 1984, for P68,400.00, with P16,416.00 downpayment and the balance payable in 12 monthly installments bearing 24% per annum interest; full payment was alleged to have been made on October 7, 1985 (O.R. No. 6266). Valenzuela later complained that despite full payment petitioner refused to execute the deed of absolute sale and deliver the transfer certificate of title, and that he had offered to reimburse or pay transfer expenses but was rebuffed.
On June 30, 1986 Valenzuela filed a complaint with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB). The OAALA rendered judgment on January 21, 1987 ordering petitioner, within 15 days from finality, to execute the deed of absolute sale, bill complainant for registration and transfer expenses, and upon receipt of such payment to deliver the transfer certificate of title free of liens; failing delivery, OAALA ordered refund of P76,180.82 plus 24% interest from June 30, 1986 and attorney’s fees of P2,000.00.
Petitioner appealed to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On October 6, 1987 the HLURB affirmed the OAALA decision in toto, noting that Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 requires delivery of title upon full payment and that the six-month mortgage-redemption period could not be used to delay issuance. Petitioner then appealed to the Office of the President; on April 11, 1989 the Deputy Executive Secretary dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and on September 26, 1989 denied the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner invoked this Court by a petition for review on certiorari (treated as certiorari) challenging the Office of the President’s April 11, 1989 decision and the September 26, 1989 resolution, mainly arguing that (a) specific performance and rescission cannot be awarded simultaneously; (b) there was no proof Valenzuela offered to pay transfer expenses; (c) the 24% interest i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner estopped from denying that private respondent was ready, willing and able to pay the transfer expenses, and are the OAALA’s factual findings on that matter entitled to finality?
- May specific performance and rescission be ordered concurrently in this case, or did the administrative bodies err in granting both remedies?
- Was the award of 24% per annum interest on refund improper and should the legal rate instead apply?
- Does the six-month redemption period under Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 run only from issuance of the title so that a developer’s fail...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)