Case Digest (G.R. No. 208185)
Facts:
Priscilla Zafra Orbe v. Filinvest Land, Inc., G.R. No. 208185, September 06, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Priscilla Zafra Orbe; respondent is Filinvest Land, Inc. The petition is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' October 11, 2012 Decision and July 3, 2013 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 118285.In June 2001 Orbe entered into a purchase agreement with Filinvest for a 385-sq.m. lot (Highlands Pointe, Taytay, Rizal) at a total contract price of P2,566,795.00, payable in installments with escalating monthly amortizations. From June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004 Orbe paid a total of P608,648.20 by checks and Filinvest issued official receipts. Thereafter Orbe stopped paying due to financial difficulties. On October 4, 2004 Filinvest sent a notice of cancellation, received October 18, 2004; the notice bore a jurat dated October 6, 2004. Filinvest subsequently re-sold the lot to Ruel Ymana.
Orbe filed a Complaint for refund with damages before the HLURB Expanded NCR Field Office (filed November 13, 2007), arguing she had paid from June 2001 to October 2004 and that the October 4, 2004 notice was not a valid notarial cancellation under Republic Act No. 6552 (the Maceda Law). Filinvest countered that Orbe had not paid 24 monthly installments and that her payments covered reservation, down payment and late charges rather than the amortizations.
Arbiter Leonard Jacinto A. Soriano (HLURB Field Office) rendered a July 25, 2008 Decision in favor of Orbe, awarding refund under Section 3 of RA 6552. The HLURB Board of Commissioners affirmed on April 15, 2009 but noted Orbe’s payments fell two months short of two years’ worth of installments and nevertheless awarded a 50% refund on equitable grounds. The Office of the President, on February 4, 2011, sustained the award of 50% refund and agreed with Arbiter Soriano that Orbe had made installment payments for more than two years. Filinvest elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in its October 11, 2012 Decision (Twelfth Division), reversed the prior rulings, held that “two years of installments” means the equivalent value of twenty‑four (24) monthly amortizations and that Orbe’s total payments were short of that threshold; it ruled Section 4 applied and that Filinvest’s notarized notice of cancellation was valid, thus dismissing Orbe’s c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner Priscilla Zafra Orbe pay “at least two years of installments” so as to be entitled to the benefits of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6552?
- If not, was respondent Filinvest’s notice of cancellation valid under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6552 (i.e., was there a valid notarial act)?
- If the cancellation was invalid but the lot has since been sold to a third party, what is the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)