G.R. No. 211301 - Park Developers, Inc. vs. Daclan

On September 24, 2003, Elizabeth D. Daclan (respondent) purchased a family estate memorial lot at Sanctuary Memorial Park, Barangay Timalan, Naic, Cavite, from Park Developers Incorporated (PDI) (petitioner) through a document denominated as “Application for Continual Use.”
The contract price was PHP 708,000.00 payable in 36 monthly installments. Respondent had paid a total of PHP 457,760.74 at the time of filing the case.

Sometime in 2005, respondent learned through a Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) certification that PDI did not have a Certificate of Registration or License to Sell.

On January 13, 2006, respondent filed a case for annulment of contract with damages against PDI and its corporate officers (petitioners).
On March 31, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Pasig City rendered judgment:

Annulling the Application for Continual Use contract.
Ordering petitioners to return all payments totaling PHP 457,760.74 with legal interest.
Ordering payment of moral damages of PHP 50,000 and exemplary damages of PHP 50,000.
Awarding attorney’s fees of PHP 100,000.

Petitioners filed an ordinary appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court before the CA, assigning sole error: lack of jurisdiction of the RTC because HLURB has primary jurisdiction over the subject matter.
On August 12, 2013, the CA dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, holding that since only a question of law was raised, the appeal should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 instead.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied on February 10, 2014.

Petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA decisions, arguing the CA erred in dismissing their appeal and requesting the Court to decide the jurisdiction issue over contracts involving memorial lots purchased without license to sell.

Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal on the ground that it raised only a pure question of law and should have been filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, rather than an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

Whether the HLURB has primary or exclusive jurisdiction over complaints involving annulment of contracts for purchase or continual use of memorial lots, arising from developer’s lack of certificate of registration and license to sell.

Whether the RTC’s decision annulling the contract, ordering the return of payments, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees is proper or void for lack of jurisdiction.