Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONTINUE TO LAWYERLY APP

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM SUPERVISORS' UNION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 198745 2016-01-13	BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK v. SUNNYSIDE HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REYES, J.
In its Answer,[7] PCIB maintained that the mortgaged lot is different from the lot referred to in SHHA's complaint, and moreover, the title to the said mortgaged lot bears no annotation that it has been reserved as open space. Claiming to be an innocent mortgagee in good faith and for value, PCIB insisted that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129[8] and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344,[9] the complaint should have been filed with the regular courts.
	GR No. 171677 2013-01-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RINA PARAYNO LIM REYES, J.
[42] Otherwise known as "Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writ of Execution in the Enforcement of its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No. 957", effective April 2, 1978.
	GR No. 155113 2013-01-09	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. PRIDISONS REALTY CORPORATION BRION, J.
Section 1 of PD No. 1344[15] limits the scope of the HLURB's jurisdiction over the following cases: 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:
	GR No. 177995 2011-06-15	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The OP cited Section 2[10] of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344[11] which provides that an appeal from the decision of the NHA should be made within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision and that if an appeal was made and said decision is not reversed and/or amended within a period of thirty (30) days, the decision is deemed affirmed. The OP held that since more than thirty (30) days had lapsed since the appeal became ripe for decision and there was no reversal or amendment of the appealed ruling, the questioned award of the NHA is deemed affirmed. The OP further ruled that the appeal was filed out of time, noting that it took petitioners twenty-six (26) days to file it.
	GR No. 156439 2010-09-29	CLEMENCIA P. CALARA v. TERESITA FRANCISCO PEREZ, J.
The mere relationship of the parties as a subdivision developer/owner and subdivision lot buyer does not, concededly, vest the HLURB automatic jurisdiction over a case. In the cases of Roxas vs. Court of Appeals [48] and Filar Development Corporation vs. Sps. Villar,[49] this Court upheld the MTC's jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment commenced by the subdivision developer on account of the buyer's failure to pay the installments stipulated in the party's contract to sell. In said cases, however, the buyers had no justifiable ground to stop payment of the stipulated installments and/or any of the causes of action cognizable by the HLURB under Section 1[50] of P.D. 1344.[51] In not applying the ruling in Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip,[52] moreover, the Court likewise took appropriate note of the fact that the buyers in said cases have not commenced an action for unsound real estate businesses practices against the subdivision developers. Here, respondents have not only instituted a complaint for violation of P.D. 957 against petitioner Clemencia Calara but had also already obtained a definitive ruling on the latter's failure to fully develop the subdivision which they cited as justification for not making further payments on Lot No. 23 of the Lophcal (Calara) Subdivision.
	GR No. 160208 2008-06-30	RAFAEL R. MARTELINO v. NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
IV. Respondents' contention that the case should or could have been filed with the HLURB lacks merit. The jurisdiction of the HLURB is defined under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344,[52] to wit: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 [now HLURB] shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
	GR No. 138955 2002-10-29	AMPARO ROXAS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In support of her position, petitioner cites Sec. 1 of P.D. 1344,[21] to wit: Sec. 1. In the exercise of its function 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 the cases of the following