Case Digest (G.R. No. 246127)
Facts:
Atty. Roberto F. De Leon v. Lourdes S. Asombrado-Llacuna, G.R. No. 246127, March 02, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Atty. Roberto F. De Leon (former president of Provident Savings Bank, "PSB"); the respondent is Lourdes S. Asombrado-Llacuna (a purchaser of a subdivision lot). The dispute concerns non‑delivery of title for Lot 39, Block 4, No. 62 St. Mary, Provident Village, Marikina (TCT No. 186004), originally under Eusebio L. Lopez, Jr. and developed by Provident Securities Corporation ("Prosecor").In July 1983 Lourdes purchased the lot from Prosecor; a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1986 and Lourdes and her family have occupied the property since purchase. Despite full payment, Prosecor did not deliver the Torrens title, which remained in Lopez’s name. Prosecor was later dissolved. In 1993 PSB, represented by Atty. De Leon, executed an Assignment of Mortgage over the property in favor of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. PSB itself was dissolved in 1996; Atty. De Leon resigned as PSB president earlier.
In February 2012 Lourdes obtained a certified copy of TCT No. 186004 and discovered an annotation of the 1993 Assignment of Mortgage. She did not, however, annotate an adverse claim. After demand letters to Atty. De Leon went unanswered, Lourdes filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on September 21, 2012, seeking delivery of TCT No. 186004 and damages against Atty. De Leon and PSB.
Before the HLURB, Atty. De Leon moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and prescription/laches, arguing PSB and he were not the real parties in interest and that Prosecor — the developer/obligor under P.D. No. 957, Sec. 25 — was indispensable. On March 1, 2016, the HLURB arbiter dismissed the complaint for failure to implead indispensable party Prosecor and for failure to prove PSB was Prosecor’s successor‑in‑interest. Lourdes filed a Verified Petition for Review to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, which on June 16, 2016 denied her appeal and affirmed the dismissal.
Lourdes then filed a Rule 43 petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on October 15, 2018 set aside the HLURB Board decision and remanded the case to the HLURB for inclusion of Prosecor as indispensable party and further proceedings. The CA denied Atty. De Leon’s motion for reconsideration on March 12, 2019. A...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to dismiss Lourdes’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the HLURB Board of Commissioners’ dismissal of the complaint for failure to implead an indispensable party (Prosecor)?
- Can PSB and/or Atty. De Leon be held liable for failure to deliver the title — i.e., are they real parties in interest or successors‑in‑interest of Prosecor?
- Is Lour...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)