Case Digest (G.R. No. 169343)
Facts:
San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.The parties are San Miguel Properties, Inc. (SMPI), petitioner, and BF Homes, Inc. (BF Homes), respondent; Florencio B. Orendain acted in the transactions as rehabilitation receiver and later as chairman of FBO Networks Management, Inc. (FBO), the corporate receiver. The dispute arose from three Deeds of Absolute Sale executed in 1992–1993 by which BF Homes (through Orendain/FBO) sold 130 Italia II subdivision lots to SMPI for an aggregate price of P106,247,701.00; SMPI completed payments by December 1995 but BF Homes delivered Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) for only 110 lots and withheld 20 TCTs.
SMPI demanded the remaining 20 TCTs (May 20, 1996) and, after BF Homes refused, filed a complaint for specific performance with damages before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on August 24, 2000 (HLURB Case No. REM‑082400‑11183). BF Homes counterclaimed, asserting Orendain lacked authority (his appointment as receiver allegedly revoked in 1989), the sales were undated and unnotarized, and consideration was grossly inadequate. SMPI relied on various Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) orders that, it claimed, had validated the transactions and confirmed the receiver’s acts.
At the HLURB arbiter level, Arbiter Rowena C. Balasolla suspended proceedings (Jan. 25, 2002), invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the SEC was still entertaining issues about Orendain’s authority; the Board of Commissioners affirmed the suspension (Mar. 28, 2003). SMPI appealed that ruling to the Office of the President (O.P.), which reviewed the record and, on January 27, 2004, reversed the HLURB and ordered BF Homes to deliver the 20 TCTs and to pay SMPI P100,000 attorney’s fees, dismissing other claims for lack of proof. BF Homes moved for reconsideration before the O.P., which denied reconsideration (Mar. 26, 2004).
BF Homes then petitioned the Court of Appeals under Rule 43; the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 83631) on January 31, 2005 affirmed the O.P.’s finding that HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over specific‑performance complaints under Presidential Decree No. 957 and PD No. 1344, but modified by remanding the case to the HLURB for further proceedings under...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in remanding the case to the HLURB under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
- On the merits, is SMPI entitled to delivery of the remaining 20 TCTs for the fully paid lots?
- Are the Deeds of Absolute Sale enforceable despite not being notarized and despite BF Homes’ contention that Orendain lacked authority or that the consideration was inadequate?
- Was the awa...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)