G.R. No. 109703 - Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs. Sendino

Private respondent Lucina S. Sendino entered into a reservation agreement with Realty Exchange Venture, Inc. (REVI) for a 120-square meter lot in Raymondville Subdivision, Sucat, Paranaque, with a purchase price of P307,800.00.
Payment details include:

Partial reservation fee of P1,000.00 on January 15, 1989.
Completion of the reservation fee with an additional P4,000.00 on January 20, 1989.
Full downpayment amounting to P16,600.00 on July 18, 1989.

During the transaction, REVI advised Sendino to change her co-maker; she requested and was granted an extension of one month to comply.
REVI subsequently cancelled the contract on July 31, 1989, alleging non-compliance by Sendino in submitting the required documents stipulated in the original agreement.

On April 20, 1990, Private respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
The reliefs sought in the complaint included:

Enforcement of the sale of the house and lot (Block 4, Lot 17 at Raymondville Subdivision, Sucat Road, Paranaque).
Payment of actual, nominal, and moral damages (amount to be determined during the hearing).
Payment of attorney’s fees amounting to P10,000.00.
Payment of exemplary damages of P10,000.00 to deter any future unsound business practices.

On August 17, 1990, the petition was amended to implead petitioners Magdiwang Realty Corporation (MRC), identified as the registered owner of the subject lot (as per TCT No. 76023).

On April 3, 1991, the HLURB rendered its decision in favor of Private respondent, ordering petitioners to:

Continue with the sale of the subject property.
Pay moral damages of P5,000.00, exemplary damages of P5,000.00, and attorney’s fees and costs amounting to P6,000.00.

An appeal was taken to the HLURB OAALA Arbiter, who affirmed the original decision.
The decision of the OAALA Arbiter was further appealed to the Office of the President (public respondent), which on January 7, 1993, rendered a decision dismissing the petitioners’ appeal.
A motion for reconsideration was filed and later denied by the public respondent on January 26, 1993.

The petitioners challenged the basis on which the HLURB acted and the scope of its quasi-judicial functions under Executive Orders and applicable laws.
Specifically, petitioners questioned the authority of the HLURB and its Board of Commissioners to delegate adjudicatory powers to a subordinate division and the manner in which the cancellation of the reservation agreement was effected.

Whether the public respondent erred in declaring that the HLURB possesses quasi-judicial functions despite the absence of an express grant under Executive Order No. 90 of December 17, 1986, and in allowing its Board of Commissioners to delegate such functions to a subordinate office.
Whether the public respondent abused its discretion in declaring that the lot subject to the contract was “paraphernal” despite evidence of its conjugal nature, affecting the substantive rights of the parties.
Whether the public respondent abused its discretion by declaring that only a notarial notice of rescission may validly cancel a reservation agreement pursuant to Republic Act No. 6552, thus rendering petitioners’ cancellation of the contract improper where the statutory conditions were not met.