Title
Lefebre vs. A Brown Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 224973
Decision Date
Sep 27, 2017
Lefebre reserved a lot in Xavier Estates based on a promised golf course. After non-development and contract cancellation, she sued for misrepresentation. SC ruled in her favor, invalidating rescission due to RA 6552 violations and awarding a refund under PD 957.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224973)

Facts Surrounding the Transaction

In 1998, Gina Lefebre made a reservation for a residential lot based on the representation that a championship golf course would be developed. Initially reserving a smaller lot, she subsequently upgraded to a larger parcel, leading to a Contract to Sell that required a 30% down payment and monthly amortizations. However, the anticipated golf course was never developed, prompting Lefebre to fall behind on her payments, eventually leading to the cancellation of the contract by the respondent. Lefebre then filed a complaint against the respondent, asserting she had paid a total of P8.1 million.

HLURB Arbiter's Decision

In January 2011, the HLURB Arbiter ruled in favor of A Brown Company, stating that Lefebre's claim of misleading advertisement was raised only after her failure to pay. The Arbiter did, however, acknowledge that Lefebre was entitled to a cash surrender value before cancellation of the contract could take place, thereby emphasizing that the respondent had not fulfilled its duty to develop the promised golf course.

HLURB Board of Commissioners' Ruling

The HLURB Board of Commissioners, in May 2011, reversed the Arbiter’s decision, declaring the cancellation of the Contract to Sell invalid, citing failure to pay the cash surrender value. The Board ruled that an outstanding entitlement to a full refund of the payments made by Lefebre existed, along with additional damages and sanctions against A Brown Company.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Following the unfavorable ruling of the HLURB BOC, A Brown Company sought judicial remedy through a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed it for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but later reinstated the case, ultimately siding with the HLURB Arbiter’s findings. The CA noted that Lefebre’s ongoing non-payment invalidated the reason for rescinding the Contract to Sell, although it recognized her right to cash surrender benefits.

Key Legal Issues

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA's reinstatement of the HLU Arbiter's Decision was justified despite respondent's procedural missteps in filing for certiorari without appealing to the Office of the President.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the respondent's failure to exhaust administrative remedies disallowed the CA

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.