G.R. No. 176129 - Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo vs. Rudex International Development Corporation

Petitioners Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo (Euprocinia, Royce, and Irish Crisostomo) acted as the wife and children, respectively, of the late complainant, Rodolfo Crisostomo, who died during the pendency of the case.
Respondent Rudex International Development Corporation was a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business.

On December 17, 2001, the Crisostomo spouses were offered a house and lot at Patricia South Villa, a subdivision developed by respondent in Anabu II-F, Imus, Cavite.
After viewing the model house on Block 8, Lot 3, the Crisostomos decided to buy the property priced at P833,000.00 on installment basis.
On the same day, petitioners paid P10,000.00 as down payment and signed a Reservation Agreement.
On December 21, 2001, the couple paid an additional P50,000.00, executed a promissory note, and issued 36 postdated checks to cover monthly amortizations.
The Crisostomos were given a Key Acceptance, Walk Through, and Final Turnover Certificate.

On February 10, 2002, the Crisostomo family moved in to the house.
They later noticed several construction defects on the house and inadequate facilities in the subdivision.
On March 22, 2002, Rodolfo asked his wife to discontinue paying monthly amortizations and to seek rescission of the contract.
On May 17, 2002, Rodolfo delivered a letter of complaint to respondent rescinding the Contract to Sell, demanding the refund of all payments made, and reiterating that he would no longer pay monthly amortizations.
On May 27, 2002, Rodolfo filed a Complaint for violation of Presidential Decree Nos. 1344 and 957 and Board Resolution No. 579 of 1995 before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Because respondent failed to answer, it was declared in default on November 26, 2003.

On March 12, 2003, the HLURB conducted an ocular inspection in Patricia South Villa and found Rodolfo’s allegations supported by its findings.
The HLURB held that under Section 20 of Presidential Decree No. 957, its findings justified Rodolfo’s right to demand rescission.
On July 7, 2003, HLURB issued Judgment by Default ordering rescission and refund, with a directive for surrender of the property after full payment, plus attorney’s fees and administrative fine.
In the dispositive portion of the July 7, 2003 default judgment, HLURB ordered respondent to:

Declare rescission valid and order refund of total payments amounting to P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment.
Direct peaceful surrender of the subject property in favor of respondent after full payment.
Pay P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Pay HLURB P10,000.00 as administrative fine for violation of Section 20 in relation to Section 38 of P.D. 957.

On August 26, 2003, respondent asked the HLURB to review the July 7, 2003 decision.
Respondent alleged that Rodolfo’s allegations were concocted to get out of the contract because he could no longer pay monthly amortizations.
On August 17, 2004, HLURB rendered a decision modifying the earlier judgment.
The modified August 17, 2004 HLURB decision rescinded the reservation agreement and ordered refund of P71,650.00 with interest at legal interest from filing of the complaint, required turn-over of possession by complainant to respondent, and required complainant to pay respondent reasonable compensation for use of the unit at P4,000.00 per month until turn-over of possession.
The modified decision also maintained:

Attorney’s fees of P5,000.00.
HLURB administrative fine of P10,000.00 for violation of Section 20 in relation to Section 38 of P.D. 957.

Petitioners, upon Rodolfo’s death, substituted him and appealed to the Office of the President.
On November 18, 2005, the Office of the President decided in petitioners’ favor and:

Reversed and set aside the HLURB Board of Commissioners decision dated August 23, 2004.
Declared the contract of sale rescinded.
Ordered petitioners to turn over possession of the property to respondent.
Ordered respondent to refund petitioners’ total payments of P71,650.00 with interest at 12% per annum from June 10, 2002 (time of filing of the complaint).
Ordered respondent to pay petitioners P25,000.00 moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary damages.
Ordered respondent to pay P5,000.00 attorney’s fees.
Ordered respondent to pay administrative fine of P10,000.00.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.
On May 9, 2006, the Office of the President granted respondent’s motion and reinstated the August 17, 2004 HLURB decision.
In resolving the issue on whether the Office of the President properly deleted the HLURB award of rentals, it held that P.D. No. 957 did not authorize oppression of perceived unscrupulous subdivision developers simply because a home buyer alleged infirmities.
It also ruled that deletion of the award of rentals would result in unduly enriching petitioners.
The Office of the President reasoned that petitioners’ staying at the premises for free without compensation, to respondent’s prejudice, showed undue enrichment, and it stated that rentals were su...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ Petition for Review for being filed out of time

Whether petitioners’ one-day delay in filing their Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals constituted excusable negligence.
Whether the delay lacked intent to delay the administration of justice and whether equity warranted giving due course to the petition.

Whether the Supreme Court should address jurisdictional claims regarding the HLURB appeal board and the Office of the President

Whether the HLURB appeal board had jurisdiction to modify the HLURB default judgment.
Whether the Office of the President acted in excess of jurisdiction by affirming the HLURB appeal board’s decision en toto....(Subscriber-Only)