Case Digest (G.R. No. 162090)
Facts:
Spouses Howard T. Co Chien and Susan Y. Co Chien v. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. and Alsons Land Corporation, G.R. No. 162090, January 31, 2007, the Supreme Court First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 certiorari action assailing the Court of Appeals decision in CA G.R. SP No. 78161.
The parties are Spouses Co Chien (petitioners) as buyers, and Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. and Alsons Land Corporation (respondents) as developer and landowner, respectively; Fil‑Estate Realty Corporation was the marketing agent. In December 1995 respondents offered lots and golf shares in the Eagle Ridge project. On December 20, 1995 respondents and the petitioners executed a Contract to Sell (with an addendum) for Lot No. 16, Phase I (301 sq. m.) at P1,293,300.00, with a 10% discount and a down payment of P581,535.00; balance was due upon delivery of title, with the addendum providing forfeiture of the 10% discount if payment were not made within seven days after notice that title was ready.
At the time of contracting respondents had not yet obtained a Certificate of Registration or a License to Sell from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as required by Presidential Decree No. 957; those documents were issued in July 1997. On January 19, 1998 respondents notified petitioners that title was ready and demanded payment of the balance. The petitioners attempted renegotiation for a larger discount or lot exchange and failed to pay within seven days; respondents forfeited the 10% discount in accordance with the addendum.
On June 16, 1999 petitioners demanded refund of the down payment asserting the contract was void for lack of HLURB registration/license at execution; after no favorable response they filed an HLURB complaint on July 6, 1999. The HLURB Arbiter (May 30, 2001) ordered refund of down payment with interest and P10,000 attorney’s fees, finding the contract null due to absence of registration/license. The HLURB Board reversed, holding the Contract valid, ordering petitioners to pay the balance (without penalty interest), and imposing administrative fines (P20,000 for violations of Sec. 4 and another P20,000 for violations of Sec. 5 of P...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the absence of the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell at the time of execution render the Contract to Sell and its addendum null and void under P.D. 957?
- Are petitioners estopped by laches or otherwise precluded from repudiating the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)