G.R. No. 165742 - Tri-Corp Land and Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On February 12, 1998, Greystone executed a Contract to Sell in favor of Tri-Corp Land and Development, Inc. for a unit known as Casa Madeira, a residential condominium located in San Miguel Village, Makati City.
The Contract to Sell stipulated a purchase price of P13,500,000 (exclusive of interest) payable in installments, with the unit intended as a family residence for Tri-Corp’s officers and stockholders.

Tri-Corp’s application for membership in the San Miguel Village Homeowner’s Association (SMVHA) was denied, and gate passes for vehicles were not issued.
The denial was based on purported violations of village restrictions related to the construction of the Casa Madeira condominium project, as evidenced by the annotation “Entry No. 31976” on the back of certain Transfer Certificates of Title.

SMVHA initiated a case against Greystone before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking the cancellation of the Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) for the project.
Amid the pending HLURB case (docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-10045), Tri-Corp filed a Complaint-in-Intervention seeking a suspension of payments until the issues concerning the village restrictions and the validity of the CCT were resolved.
Tri-Corp also filed a separate petition before the HLURB on September 28, 2000, seeking the suspension and cancellation of Greystone’s Certificate of Registration and License to Sell.

Greystone filed an ejectment suit against Tri-Corp for non-payment under the Contract to Sell (Civil Case No. 63308), leading to Tri-Corp’s ejection by the sheriff for refusal to post a supersedeas bond; this case remained pending on appeal.
Tri-Corp also sought to correct errors and misrepresentations in the Master Deed recorded in the Transfer Certificates of Title by filing a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which was sitting as a Land Registration Court (LRC Case No. M-4086).

During a hearing for a writ of preliminary injunction on September 28, 2000, Greystone raised the issue of jurisdiction, asserting that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved unsound real estate practices, which fell under HLURB’s exclusive domain.
In an Order dated November 15, 2000, the RTC dismissed Tri-Corp’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, denying the application for a Temporary Restraining Order or writ of preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint.
Tri-Corp’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in an RTC Order dated June 11, 2001.
The Court of Appeals later affirmed the RTC’s orders on June 9, 2004, and subsequently denied Tri-Corp’s motion for reconsideration on September 21, 2004, ruling it was filed out of time and without merit.

Tri-Corp alleged that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by:

Declaring its motion for reconsideration filed out of time, even though Tri-Corp argued that its representative’s location should not dictate the computation of time.
Declaring Tri-Corp as not a party in interest, despite its potential substantial loss compared to Greystone’s gain.
Affirming the RTC’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds without proper regard for the protective mandates of PD 957 for condominium buyers.

Greystone countered these allegations by emphasizing that the proper receipt date of the decision was according to Tri-Corp’s mailbox and that the motion was indeed filed beyond the prescribed period.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by deeming Tri-Corp’s motion for reconsideration as filed out of time.
Whether declaring Tri-Corp as not a party in interest amounts to grave abuse of discretion, given the contractual provisions and potential loss incurred by Tri-Corp versus Greystone’s benefits upon rescission.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its jurisdictional ruling by affirming the RTC’s dismissal of Tri-Corp’s petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, especially considering the involvement of unsound real estate practices and the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.