G.R. No. 165025 - Fedman Development Corp. vs. Agcaoili

Fedman Development Corporation (FDC) owned and developed Fedman Suites Building (FSB), a condominium project in Makati City.
Interchem Laboratories Incorporated (Interchem) purchased Unit 411 of FSB in 1975 under a contract to sell.
In 1977, FDC executed a Master Deed and formed Fedman Suite Condominium Corporation (FSCC) to manage the building and hold common area titles.
In 1980, Interchem transferred Unit 411 rights to respondent Federico Agcaoili (Agcaoili), an attorney and provincial board member.
Consideration for the transfer involved payments totaling ₱302,760.00, including an initial ₱150,000 upon signing, ₱15,473.17 postdated check, and monthly installments with 12% interest.

December 1983, the centralized air-conditioning unit on the 4th floor of FSB broke.
January 1984, Agcaoili demanded FSCC to repair it via letters, but no response followed.
Agcaoili then suspended payment of condominium dues and monthly amortizations.
August 1984, FDC cancelled the contract to sell and cut off electricity to Unit 411, prompting Agcaoili to sue FDC and FSCC for injunction and damages in RTC Makati, Branch 144.
The parties entered a compromise agreement in August 1985, approved by RTC, with Agcaoili paying arrears and FDC reinstating the contract and allowing temporary window-type air-conditioners.

April 1986, FDC again disconnected electricity to Unit 411.
Agcaoili moved to execute the earlier RTC decision restoring electric supply; the court temporarily granted electricity access from other units.
March 1987, Agcaoili filed a complaint against FDC and FSCC in RTC Branch 150, alleging unjust disconnection deprived him of use and enjoyment, violating the compromise agreement. He prayed for actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and refund of excessive real estate taxes.
FDC answered denying liability, asserting separation from FSCC, non-payment by Agcaoili, cancellation of the contract to sell, and sought damages and attorney’s fees as counterclaims.
FSCC admitted disconnection was due to non-payment, justified the action, and filed counterclaims for damages and legal fees.

August 28, 1998, RTC ruled in favor of Agcaoili: the complaint was not barred by res judicata; suspension of payments justified; FDC improperly cancelled the contract; FDC and FSCC were the same entity and solidarily liable; awarded actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; ordered refund of excess real estate taxes.
FDC appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in 2004.
FDC filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction despite alleged non-payment or deficiency of docket fees due to non-specification of amounts sought for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction or whether the case rightly fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

Whether Agcaoili had the right to suspend his monthly amortization payments given the increase in interest rates.

Whether FDC and FSCC are separate entities or the same corporation liable for damages.