Title
San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. vs. Bayang
Case
G.R. No. 194702
Decision Date
Apr 20, 2015
A buyer fully paid for a lot, but the developer failed to execute the deed of sale. The HLURB ruled in favor of the buyer, but the developer's appeal to the OP was dismissed as untimely. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling the "fresh period rule" applies only to judicial, not administrative, appeals.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 194702)

Facts:

San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. and Oscar Violago v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayang, G.R. No. 194702, April 20, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.

On April 15, 2000, petitioner San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. (then Violago Builders, Inc.) sold a 60-square-meter lot to respondent Ma. Cristina F. Bayang under a contract to sell. After respondent completed monthly amortizations, she demanded execution of the deed of absolute sale and delivery of the title; when petitioners failed to deliver, she filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioners and their president, Oscar Violago, before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

On February 16, 2004, the HLURB Arbiter rendered judgment in respondent's favor ordering the execution of the deed of sale or, alternatively, reimbursement with interest and the payment of moral, exemplary and attorney’s fees, plus an administrative fine for violation of PD 957. Petitioners appealed to the HLURB Board of Commissioners; the Board dismissed the appeal in a decision dated June 27, 2005 and denied reconsideration in a resolution dated March 30, 2006.

Petitioners then appealed to the Office of the President (OP) in O.P. Case No. 06-D-160. In a resolution dated November 17, 2006, the OP dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, noting that petitioners received the HLURB Board decision on July 27, 2005, filed a motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2005 (after 14 of the 15 days had elapsed), and, upon denial of reconsideration on April 17, 2006, had only until April 18, 2006 to perfect their appeal but filed on April 27, 2006.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration before the OP, invoking the "fresh period rule" from Domingo Neypes v. Court of Appeals. The OP denied the motion on July 26, 2007, holding that the Neypes rule applies only to judicial appeals. Petitioners sought review in the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision dated July 23, 2010 (and resolution December 2, 2010), aff...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Does the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Domingo Neypes apply to administrative appeals, specifically an appeal from an HLURB Board of Commissioners decision to the Office of the...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.