Case Digest (G.R. No. 196182)
Facts:
In ECE Realty and Development Inc. vs. Rachel G. Mandap, decided on September 1, 2014 under G.R. No. 196182, the petitioner, a corporation engaged in condominium development, began constructing Central Park Condominium in Pasay City in 1995 but circulated printed advertisements stating it was in Makati City. In December 1995, respondent Mandap paid a reservation fee, downpayment, and monthly installments, and on June 18, 1996 executed a Contract to Sell which correctly stated the project’s Pasay City location. Over two years later, Mandap learned of the actual site, demanded a refund of ₱422,500 on October 30, 1998, and upon receiving no substantive reply filed a complaint with the Expanded National Capital Region Field Office of the HLURB. The arbiter dismissed her case on September 30, 2005 for lack of fraud evidence. Mandap’s appeals to the HLURB Board of Commissioners (April 25, 2006) and the Office of the President (June 21, 2007; reconsideration denied August 29, 2007) all...Case Digest (G.R. No. 196182)
Facts:
- Parties and Project
- Petitioner ECE Realty and Development Inc. is a corporation engaged in building and developing condominium units.
- Respondent Rachel G. Mandap agreed to purchase a condominium unit in petitioner’s “Central Park Condominium Building.”
- Misrepresentation and Contract to Sell
- Petitioner’s printed advertisements indicated the project was in Makati City, but the actual site was along Jorge St., Pasay City.
- Respondent paid a reservation fee, downpayment, and monthly installments, and on June 18, 1996 executed a notarized Contract to Sell stating the unit was in Pasay City.
- Demand, Administrative Proceedings, and Appeals
- On October 30, 1998, respondent demanded return of ₱422,500 for alleged misrepresentation of location. Petitioner’s November 30, 1998 letter invited inspection and occupancy instead of refund.
- Respondent filed with HLURB–ENCRFO; on September 30, 2005 it dismissed her complaint for lack of fraudulent machinations.
- HLURB Board of Commissioners (April 25, 2006) and the Office of the President (June 21, 2007; MR denied August 29, 2007) affirmed dismissal, upholding the written contract as exclusive source of rights.
- Respondent petitioned the Court of Appeals; on July 21, 2010 it reversed, annulled the contract, and ordered refund with 12% interest. MR was denied March 15, 2011.
- Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari, assigning errors on findings of fraud and the 12% interest rate.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s misrepresentation of project location constituted causal fraud sufficient to annul the Contract to Sell.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding legal interest at 12% per annum instead of 6%.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)