Case Digest (G.R. No. 171298)
Facts:
Spouses Oscar and Thelma Cacayorin v. Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc., G.R. No. 171298, April 15, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners, Oscar (an AFPMBAI member) and Thelma Cacayorin, applied to purchase Lot 5, Block 8, Phase I, Kalikasan Mutual Homes in Puerto Princesa from Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. (AFPMBAI) through a loan facility. On July 4, 1994, the Cacayorins executed a Loan and Mortgage Agreement with the Rural Bank of San Teodoro (RBST) as lender under the Pag-IBIG/Home Financing Program. RBST issued an August 22, 1994 letter of guaranty assuring release of loan proceeds to AFPMBAI after transfer of the title and registration/annotation of the mortgage.
Relying on the guaranty, AFPMBAI executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Cacayorins and a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37017 (TCT No. 37017) was issued in their names with annotation of the mortgage. The Pag-IBIG loan, however, did not push through; RBST closed and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) was appointed receiver. AFPMBAI came into possession of the petitioners’ loan documents and TCT No. 37017 while petitioners remained unable to pay the purchase price in full. AFPMBAI made oral and written demands for payment.
In July 2003 the Cacayorins filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa, Branch 47 (Civil Case No. 3812) for consignation of the loan payment, recovery of title and cancellation of the mortgage annotation, alleging confusion as to whom payment should be made (RBST/PDIC or AFPMBAI) because PDIC claimed no record of the loan and AFPMBAI had the loan papers and title. They prayed, among other things, for leave to consign Php77,418.00, for custody/turnover of loan records and title, and for cancellation of the mortgage annotation.
AFPMBAI moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) under PD 957 as the case involved specific performance/obligations arising from a subdivision sale, and contending the absence of prior tender rendered the consignation action defective. The RTC denied the motion in an October 16, 2003 Order and denied reconsideration on March 19, 2004. AFPMBAI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA-G.R. SP No. 84446.
On September 29, 2005 the Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, vacated and set aside the RTC’s October 16, 2003 and March 19, 2004 Orders, and held that the matter was cognizable exclusively by the HLURB under PD 957 because one of the remedies prayed for was delivery of the title. The CA denied p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Complaint in Civil Case No. 3812 fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)