Case Digest (G.R. No. 118822)
Facts:
G.O.A.L., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Office of the Resident Legal Affairs, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Rizalino Simbillo, William Ong, Herminia Mesina, Selfa Martinez, Filomeno Teng, Rafael Javier, Fernando del Mundo, Mildred Pareja, Remedios Lasquete, George Cabigan, and Arcadio Sampang, G.R. No. 118822, July 28, 1997, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner G.O.A.L., Inc. (GOAL) contracted with the National Housing Authority (NHA) on 23 May 1983 for a P4.425 million loan to construct Gemin I Condominium in Ermita, Manila; thereafter GOAL entered a 1984 construction Contract Agreement with Matson International Corporation, which later abandoned the project with about 60% completion. In 1985 GOAL offered condominium units for sale and private respondents (including Filomeno Teng) bought units; because of incomplete construction GOAL sought additional funding from NHA to finish the fifth floor, and NHA required GOAL to hold on to the certificates of title of buyers as a condition to the additional funding.
In August 1989 several unit buyers filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) alleging, inter alia, the illegal construction of the fifth floor, GOAL's failure to deliver the certificate of title to Teng despite full payment, and failure to provide adequate parking spaces. On 31 March 1989 OAALA ordered GOAL to stop construction of the fifth floor, to deliver Teng's title, and to provide adequate parking spaces.
On appeal, the Office of the President Legal Affairs (OPLA) affirmed the HLURB-OAALA decision; the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 31082 (decision penned by Justice Benipayo, concur. Justices Galvez and Labitoria), affirmed OPLA in a decision dated 28 September 1994. GOAL's motion for reconsideration was denied. GOAL filed this petition for review on...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the HLURB, OPLA and the Court of Appeals correctly order GOAL to stop construction of the fifth floor for violating Section 22 of P.D. No. 957?
- Was GOAL justified in withholding and using the certificate of title of private respondent Filomeno Teng as collateral and refusing to deliver it on the ground of contractor abandonment or force majeure?
- Did the HLURB/OPLA/CA correctly require GOAL to provide adequate parking spaces (including indoor parking) as part of the condominium common areas under the Implementing Rules of P.D. No. 957?
- Were the awards of moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and administrative fi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)