Eugenio VS Drilon

[Type text][Type text][Type text]

Digest by: Alyssa Rodriguez

GR Number + Date: G.R. 109404, January 22, 1996

Petition: Instant Petition seeking to set aside the Decision of the respondent Executive Secretary. Petitioner: Florencio Eugenio - doing business under the name E. & S. Delta VillageRespondent: Franklin M. Drilon Executive Secretary of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); Prospero Palmiano private respondentPonencia: Justice Panganiban

DOCTRINE: Retroactivity of laws. As well as the importance of the intent of laws, consistent with its preamble.

FACTS:

1. May 10, 1972 - private respondent (Palmiano), on installment basis, purchased two lots in the E & S Delta Village in Quezon City from petitioner (Eugenio) and his co-owner/ developer Fermin Salazar.2. The Delta Village Homeowners Association, Inc. filed a complaint of non-development (docketed as cases 2619 and 2620) to the National Housing Authority (NHA). Acting on this, the NHA ordered petitioner to cease and desist from making further sales of lots in said village or in any project owned by him.3. And while these NHA Cases (Cases Nos. 2619 and 2620) were still pending, private respondent (Palmiano) filed with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), a complaint against petitioner and spouses Rodolfo and Adelina Relevo (he alleges that in spite of the NHA ruling petitioner resold one of the two lots to the said spouses Relevo, in whose favor title to the said property was registered). 4. Furthermore, private respondent suspended his payments because of petitioners said failure to develop the village. Respondent also prays for the annulment of the sale to the Relevo spouses and for reconveyance of the lot to him.5. October 11, 1983 the OAALA rendered a decision upholding the right of petitioner to cancel the contract with private respondent and dismissed private respondents complaint.6. On appeal, the Commission Proper of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) reversed the OAALA and (applying P.D. 957) ordered petitioner to complete the subdivision development and to reinstate private respondents purchase contract over one lot, and as to the other (as it was bought by the couple already), to immediately refund to Palmiano all payments made thereon, plus interests computed at legal rates from date of receipt hereof until fully paid.7. The respondent Executive Secretary, on appeal, also affirmed the decision of the HSRC.8. AND THUS, petitioner has now filed this Petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:Whether or not P.D. 957, The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree has retroactive effect.Whether or not, in pursuance of P.D. 957, respondents are right in assailing that due to petitioners failure to develop the land, private respondent is justified in his non-payment of amortizations on installment under a land purchase entered into by the parties way before the enactment of P.D. 957.

PROVISIONS:P.D. 957, The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree protects the rights of subdivision and condominium buyers by providing that the developers of these properties should fulfill all the guarantees of facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development which they have offered and indicated in the approved subdivision or condominium plans, brochures, prospectus, printed matters, letters or in any form of advertisement

Sec. 23 (0f P.D. 957). Non-Forfeiture of Payments. - No installment payment made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate.

RULING + RATIO:1. Yes, it is retroactive. Although, P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, such can be plainly inferred from the unmistakable intent of the law. The intent of the law, as culled from its preamble and from the situation, circumstances and conditions it sought to remedy (From the Preamble: WHEREAS, numerous reports reveal that many real estate subdivision owners, developers, operators, and/or sellers have reneged on their representations and obligations to provide and maintain properly subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage, water systems, lighting systems, and other similar basic requirements, thus endangering the health and safety of home and lot buyers), must be enforced. 2. Yes. Pursuant to Section 23 of P.D. 957, respondent rightly invoked his desistance from making further payment to petitioner due to petitioners failure to develop the subdivision project according to the approved plans and within the time limit for complying with the same.

DISPOSITION

1. P.D. 957 is to be given retroactive effect so as to cover even those contracts executed prior to its enactment in 1976. 2. There is no merit in petitioners contention that respondent Secretary exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the refund of private respondents payments on Lot 12 although (according to petitioner) only Lot 13 was the subject of the complaint. 3. The petition is DENIED due course and is hereby DISMISSED.