Title
Clavano, Inc. vs. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
Case
G.R. No. 143781
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2002
The ruling upheld the petitioner's complaint for specific performance, nullifying the respondents' demands for reimbursement due to their default on obligations.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143781)

Facts:

  • On April 8, 1994, Jose Clavano, Inc. (Petitioner) entered into a contract to sell a house and lot in Cebu City to spouses Enrique and Venus Tenazas (Respondents).
  • The Tenazas paid 50% of the purchase price but struggled to pay the remaining balance and additional charges.
  • Claiming default by the Tenazas, Jose Clavano, Inc. refused further payments and filed a lawsuit for rescission of the contract and forfeiture of payments.
  • The lawsuit was dismissed, and the petitioner did not pursue further action.
  • The Tenazas then filed a complaint for specific performance with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking to compel the petitioner to honor the contract.
  • On November 14, 1995, the HLURB ruled in favor of the Tenazas, ordering the petitioner to accept payment, execute a Deed of Absolute Sale, and deliver the Transfer Certificate of Title, along with damages and attorney's fees.
  • The Office of the President upheld the HLURB's decision on March 12, 1998, but deleted the award for moral damages.
  • The petitioner’s attempts to challenge the HLURB's decision were dismissed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
  • On August 31, 1999, the HLURB decision became final and executory, leading to a writ of execution.
  • The petitioner was compelled to surrender documents related to the sale.
  • On March 23, 1999, the Tenazas filed a motion with the HLURB regarding defects in the housing unit and an unnotarized deed of sale.
  • The HLURB ordered the petitioner to pay for notarization and transfer fees, which the petitioner contested.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Jose Clavano, Inc.
  • The Court set aside the HLURB's orders requiring the petitioner to pay for notarization and transfer expenses, stating these obligations were not part of the...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of finality of judgments, stating that once a decision is final and executory, it cannot be amended or modified except for clerical errors.
  • The HLURB's subsequent orders to require the petitioner to pay for notarization and title transfer expenses ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.