ATTY. ENRIQUETO F. TEJADA, PETITIONER, VS. HOMESTEAD PROPERTY CORPORATION AND TACLIN V. BANEZ, RESPONDENTS.

Presented to Us for determination
in this case is the issue of the
proper forum over an action for the refund of reservation fee for the purchase of real property and damages.

The facts are not disputed.

Private respondent Taclin V. Bañez offered to sell to petitioner
Enriqueto F. Tejada a 200 square meter lot owned by respondent corporation. 
Private respondent suggested that petitioner pay a reservation fee of
P20,000.00, which would form part of the consideration in case they reach a
final agreement of sale and which amount was to be returned to the petitioner
should the parties fail to reach an agreement.

Petitioner paid the
reservation fee of P20,000.00 on March
25, 1986 with the tentative agreement that the said lot would cost
P1,150.00 per square meter, or a total price of P230,000.00.  A 24% downpayment in the amount of P55,200.00
was to be paid by petitioner.  The
balance of P174,800.00 will be payable monthly within 1 or 2 years, depending
upon the terms of the agreement. 
However, when the terms were unilaterally altered by respondent corporation by increasing the proposed
amortization payments, petitioner refused to go through with the proposed purchase and he asked the private respondents to return the P20,000.00
reservation payment. Respondents refused to return the amount.

 On September 26, 1986 petitioner filed a complaint
for the collection of a sum of money with damages against respondents with
Branch 165 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, docketed therein as Civil Case
No. 53886.  Petitioner alleged that
defendants refused to return the P20,000.00 for no justifiable reason despite
verbal and written demands.  Petitioner
further contended that such
refusal to refund the amount constitutes malicious and wanton breach of legal
duty that makes them liable to pay moral damages.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on December 9, 1986 disputing the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court and claiming that jurisdiction lies with the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC). 
The trial court denied the motion in its Order dated January 7, 1987.^[1]
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.^[2]

Not contented therewith, private respondents brought the case to
the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari claiming that the
trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to
dismiss.  In a Decision dated August 10,
1987, the appellate court ruled
that the jurisdiction over the controverted case is with the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC) (now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
[HLRB]).^[3]

Hence, the instant petition wherein petitioner argues that
inasmuch as there is no perfected
contract of sale between the parties, the claim for recovery of the reservation
fee properly falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not that
of the HSRC.

Section 1 of the Presidential Decree No. 1344 dated April 2, 1978
provides as follows:

“SECTION 1.  In the
exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in
addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the
National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases of the following nature:

A.      Unsound real estate business practices;

B.     Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against
the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman;
and

C.     Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
owner, developer, broker or salesman.” (underscoring supplied.)

 On February 7, 1981, by virtue of
Executive Order No. 648, the regulatory functions of the National Housing
Authority (NHA) were transferred to the HSRC. Section 8 thereof, amend others,
provides as follows:

“SECTION 8. Transfer of Functions. – The regulatory functions
of the National Housing Authority pursuant to Presidential Decree Nos. 957, 1216, 1344 and other related
laws are hereby transferred to
the Commission (Human Settlements Regulatory Commission).  x x x. 
Among these regulatory functions are

x
x x x       x x x x          x x x x

11. Hear and decide cases of unsound
real estate business practices; claims involving refund filed against project owners, developers,
dealers, brokers, or salesmen; and cases of specific performance.”

 Pursuant to Executive Order No. 90 dated December 17, 1986, the functions of the
HSRC were transferred to the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB).

There can be no doubt that under Presidential Decree No. 1344, the NHA has exclusive jurisdiction
to hear and decide claims involving refund and other claims filed by a
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, etc. There
is no such qualification in said
provision of law that makes a distinction between a perfected sale and one that
has yet to be perfected.  The word
“buyer” in the law should be understood to be anyone who purchases
anything for money.^[4]
Under the circumstances of this case, one who offers to buy is as much a buyer
as one who buys by virtue of a perfected contract of sale.

Moreover, upon the promulgation of Executive Order No. 90, it is
therein provided that the HLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving
refund filed against project owners, developers, and dealers, among others.  The former provision that the claim be made
by a buyer has been eliminated. 
Thus, any previous doubt as to who may file the claim has been
eliminated.  Now, any claim for refund
whether by a buyer or other party in any other capacity is definitely within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLRB.

The Court agrees with the observation of the respondent appellate
court that when an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi–judicial
functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter pertaining to its
specialization are deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said
administrative agency or body.  Split
jurisdiction is not favored.

Since in this case the action for refund of reservation fee arose from a proposed purchase of a subdivision lot obviously the
HLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit,
without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Page 31, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 32, Rollo.

^[3]
Fifth Division, penned by Associate Justice Celso L. Magsino, and concurred in by Justices Jose A.R. Melo and
Esteban M. Lising.

^[4]
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, page 248.