Case Digest (G.R. No. 194664)
Facts:
Florita Liam v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 194664, June 15, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Florita Liam entered into a Contract to Sell with developer Primetown Property Group, Inc. (PPGI) on April 11, 1996 for Condominium Unit No. 603, Hongkong Tower, Makati Prime City, for P2,614,652.66, with delivery to occur within 35 months from the start of construction. To finance the project, PPGI obtained a loan from United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and, by a Memorandum of Agreement and a Deed of Sale/Assignment dated April 23, 1998, PPGI transferred to UCPB its rights to collect receivables from condominium buyers, including Liam’s account.
PPGI notified Liam on May 29, 1998 to remit remaining payments to UCPB; Liam complied for a time but on March 9, 1999 asked for deferment of amortizations pending unit delivery and thereafter stopped paying. She renewed complaints about delayed delivery (Feb. 28, 2001), requested waiver of interest and penalties, and on April 14, 2004 demanded refund for PPGI’s failure to deliver on time. UCPB later proposed a loan restructuring (July 1, 2005); Liam discovered UCPB advertising “ready for occupancy” units at lower prices (Oct. 17, 2005) and on November 14, 2005 asked UCPB to downgrade her unit or suspend restructuring and questioned tax charges.
On April 10, 2006 Liam filed a Complaint for specific performance with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) against PPGI and UCPB seeking, among other reliefs, priority in choosing an available Palm Tower unit or application of her P1,232,259.91 payments to a replacement unit and relief from realty taxes and documentary stamp taxes. PPGI denied receipt of demands, invoked estoppel and pending corporate rehabilitation (an RTC order of August 15, 2003 had suspended enforcement of claims), and counterclaimed for costs. UCPB answered that it was merely PPGI’s assignee/creditor, not the developer, denied any obligation to deliver the unit, explained the advertisements concerned units it had acquired as loan settlement, and sought indemnification for litigation expenses.
HLURB Arbiter Torres (Aug. 16, 2007) ruled for Liam ordering UCPB to give her privilege to choose among available units or keep the original unit, and allocating certain taxes to UCPB. On appeal the HLURB Board of Commissioners modified the ruling (May 22, 2008) to order continuation of the contract and, upon full payment, UCPB to deliver the unit or alternatively refund payments with interest at 6% from filing; it also declared realty tax chargeable to UCPB and held Liam liable for documentary stamp tax. UCPB appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which affirmed the HLURB Board decision on May 7, 2009 and reiterated on reconsideration (Dec. 10, 2009) that the Deed of Sale/Assignment operated as an assignment that bound UCPB to PPGI’s contractual conditions.
UCPB then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in a Decision dated September 24, 2010 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 112195, reversed and set aside the OP and HLURB rulings, concluding that the transaction between PPGI and UCPB was an assignment of receivables and that UCPB, as mere assignee and not party to the Contract to Sell, could not be held liable for specific performance; the CA thus held UCPB was wrongl...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court may review the facts and evidence in this case under recognized exceptions to the rule that it does not act as a trier of facts.
- Whether the failure to post an appeal bond rendered the HLURB Arbiter’s Decision final and executory.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the HLURB and Office of the President by ruling that UCPB, as assignee, was not liable for specific performance under the C...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)