C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, EFREN DIONGON AND PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

C.T. Torres Enterprises versus Hibionada

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by C.T. Torres Enterprises, Incorporated against Judge Romeo Hibionada, Efren Diongon, and Pleasantville Development Corporation. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to set aside the trial court's refusal to dismiss a complaint for specific performance and damages filed by a subdivision lot buyer. The case matters because it draws the boundary between the regular courts and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board over disputes between subdivision buyers and sellers, and because it confirms that a question of law, such as lack of jurisdiction, may be raised immediately without first filing a motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

Efren Diongon filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against C.T. Torres Enterprises and Pleasantville Development Corporation in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental. Both defendants answered with cross-claims and counterclaims, and the plaintiff replied. After pre-trial and the submission of trial briefs, C.T. Torres Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board was the competent body. The trial court, through Judge Romeo Hibionada, denied the motion in an order dated September 17, 1987, holding that the complaint was a justiciable issue under the Civil Code and that jurisdiction was vested in the regular courts under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. The petitioner then went directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari to question that order, without filing a motion for reconsideration.

Facts

C.T. Torres Enterprises, acting as agent of Pleasantville Development Corporation, sold a subdivision lot on installment to Efren Diongon. Diongon completed his installment payments and then demanded delivery of the certificate of title to the land.

Neither the petitioner nor Pleasantville complied with the demand. Diongon therefore filed a complaint against them for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental.

After the pleadings were joined and pre-trial was held, C.T. Torres Enterprises moved to dismiss on the ground that jurisdiction lay with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The trial court denied the motion, and the petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a complaint for specific performance and damages filed by a subdivision lot buyer against the seller for delivery of the certificate of title, or whether such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
• Whether or not the petition is premature because no motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order was first filed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1344 defines the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority, later transferred to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board:

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 buyer 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 lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

Subparagraph C is decisive, because Diongon's complaint is precisely a suit by a subdivision lot buyer for specific performance of the seller's contractual obligation to deliver the certificate of title.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that jurisdiction over the complaint is exclusively vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The trial court had failed to consider the express provisions of Presidential Decree Number 1344 and related decrees, and it erred in supposing that only the regular courts can interpret and apply the Civil Code. The Court explained that the complaint falls squarely under subparagraph C of Section 1, since Diongon is a buyer of a subdivision lot seeking specific performance of the seller's obligation to deliver the corresponding certificate of title.

The Court also rejected the argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resolvable under the Civil Code, holding that this view is out of step with the fast-changing times. Many administrative bodies now perform this quasi-judicial function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature, as an incident of the principal power entrusted to them over activities within their particular expertise. The Court noted that in the earlier Solid Homes case it had affirmed the competence of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to award damages, although that is essentially a judicial power ordinarily exercisable only by the courts.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition was not premature. While the general rule requires a motion for reconsideration, the rule admits of exceptions, and it is settled that the motion may be dispensed with if the issue raised is a question of law. The issue pleaded here was lack of jurisdiction, a pure question of law, and it could therefore be raised directly and immediately with the Supreme Court without an antecedent motion for reconsideration.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1344, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman. Second, the fact that a claim is resolvable under the Civil Code does not remove it from the jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial body validly authorized by the legislature; administrative agencies may exercise adjudicatory powers as an incident of their regulatory function. Third, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with when the issue raised is a pure question of law, such as lack of jurisdiction, and the matter may be raised directly and immediately before the Supreme Court.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the order denying the motion to dismiss was set aside, and the civil case in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental was dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of the proper complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a subdivision buyer's suit for specific performance against the seller belongs exclusively to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, not to the regular courts. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over subdivision and condominium disputes, and to test when a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with on a pure question of law.