Title
Supreme Court
United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Spouses Uy
Case
G.R. No. 204039
Decision Date
Jan 10, 2018
Spouses Uy sought refund from UCPB after PPGI failed to complete condominium. SC ruled UCPB jointly liable, refunding only P157,757.82 received, not full purchase price.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204039)

Facts of the Case

In 1997, the respondents entered into a Contract to Sell with PPGI for a condominium unit in Kiener Hills. The total contract price was P1,151,718.75, with a down payment of P100,000.00 and a balance payable in 40 monthly installments. On April 23, 1998, PPGI entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with UCPB, transferring the right to collect the contractual receivables from buyers, including the respondents, as part of a loan settlement arrangement.

Respondents' Complaint

On April 17, 2006, the respondents filed a complaint against PPGI and UCPB with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), claiming that despite having fully paid the purchase price, PPGI did not complete the condominium unit's construction.

HLURB Regional Office Decision

In its November 29, 2006, decision, the HLURB Regional Office ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering a refund from PPGI for failing to complete construction. However, it stated that UCPB was not solidarily liable as only the accounts receivable were assigned to it, and it suspended proceedings regarding PPGI, which was undergoing corporate rehabilitation.

HLURB Board Decision

On September 17, 2007, the HLURB Board reversed the Regional Office's decision, asserting UCPB was solidarily liable with PPGI as it had stepped into PPGI's role concerning Kiener Hills. It ruled that UCPB, as PPGI's successor-in-interest, was obligated to refund payments without prejudice to its rights against PPGI.

Office of the President Decision

The Office of the President affirmed the HLURB Board's decision on March 24, 2010, highlighting that the transfer of all rights and interests under the agreement established UCPB’s obligations, including the reimbursement of payments to the respondents.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the Office of the President's ruling on May 23, 2012. It clarified that UCPB was not solidarily liable with PPGI and restricted its liability to the amounts paid by the respondents during UCPB’s entitlement to the receivables. The CA referenced the precedent in United Coconut Planters Bank v. O'Halloran, highlighting that the assignment did not equate UCPB to the developer of Kiener Hills.

UCPB's Motion for Reconsideration

UCPB sought reconsideration of the CA's ruling, which was denied by a resolution on October 18, 2012, prompting UCPB to appeal the case.

Legal Issues Raised by UCPB

UCPB raised two primary issues on appeal: the misapplication of the O'Halloran case by the CA and its liability for amounts not actually received by UCPB.

Supreme Court Ruling on the Legal Issues

The Supreme Court found merit in UCPB’s petition, asserting that the appellate court had the authority to consider the actual amount of liability upon appeal. The Court emphasized that civil liabilities were intertwined with the determination of the liability amount, and reiterated that the doctrine of stare decisis applies only to decisions made by the Supreme Court, rendering the CA’s reliance on its own prior cases non-binding.

UCPB's Joint Liability

The Court acknowledged that UCPB was only jointly liable for reimbursing respondents, as solidary liability would imply an assumption of development obligations, which the agreements did not support. The intent beh

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.