This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of mortgage.[10] To disassociate the issue of nullity of mortgage and lodge it separately with the liquidation court would only cause inconvenience to the parties and would not serve the ends of speedy and inexpensive administration of justice as mandated by the laws vesting quasi-judicial powers in the agency.[11] | |||||
|
2008-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision[35] on 25 March 2004 ruling in favor of the spouses Lozada. According to the appellate court, the issuance of the Writ of Possession was not mandatory and ministerial on the part of the Makati City RTC, and the court a quo should have afforded the spouses Lozada a hearing, considering that (1) Unit No. 402 was no longer in the possession of the original debtor/mortgagor PPGI, but was already being enjoyed by the spouses Lozada; (2) the Makati City RTC was aware that Unit No. 402 was already in the possession of the spouses Lozada because it was so stated in the ex parte petition of CBC, as well as the Notice of Adverse Claim annotated on CCT No. 69096 presented by CBC as evidence before the trial court; (3) the spouses Lozada , under Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 957, had the right to continue paying for Unit No. 402 to CBC, the purchaser thereof at the foreclosure sale, still in accordance with the tenor of the Contract to Sell; and (4) the spouses Lozada had a perfect cause of action for the annulment of the mortgage constituted by PPGI in favor of CBC since PPGI failed to comply with the requirement in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,[36] to notify the installment buyer of the condominium unit of the mortgage constituted thereon. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: | |||||
|
2008-06-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Union Bank of the Philippines v. HLURB,[17] the Court held that a realty company's act of mortgaging a condominium project without the knowledge and consent of the buyer of one of the condominium units, and without obtaining the prior approval of the NHA, constitutes unsound real estate business practice. Accordingly, the action for the annulment of such mortgage and mortgage foreclosure sale falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, thus:Clearly, FRDC's act of mortgaging the condominium project to Bancom and FEBTC, without the knowledge and consent of David as buyer of a unit therein, and without the approval of the NHA (now HLURB) as required by P.D. No. 957, was not only an unsound real estate business practice but also highly prejudicial to the buyer. David, who has a cause of action for annulment of the mortgage, the mortgage foreclosure sale, and the condominium certificate of title that was issued to the UBP and FEBTC as [the] highest bidders at the sale. The case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NHA (now HLURB) as provided in P.D. No. 957 of 1976 and P.D. No. 1344 of 1978. | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hear and decide cases on unsound real estate business practices; claims involving refund filed against project owners, developers, dealers, brokers or salesmen and cases of specific performance. Executive Order No. 90 dated 17 December 1986 changed the name of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission to Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).[34] | |||||
|
2001-10-18 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Part of the confusion lies in the deficiency of the trial court's decision. It had found that petitioner had superior right to the unit over the FUNDERS and the mortgage in favor of the FUNDERS was contrary to Condominium laws. Therefore, the proper remedy was to annul the mortgage foreclosure sale and the CCT issued in favor of ASIATRUST, and not merely decree an award for damages. We held in Union Bank of the Philippines v. HLURB -[23] | |||||