Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JESUS LIM ARRANZA v. B.F. HOMES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 189755 2012-07-04	EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SERENO, J.
It is worthy to note that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer, or those aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make the Subdivision a better place to live in.[24] This interpretation is in line with one of P.D. 957's "Whereas clauses," which provides: 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. x x x.
	GR No. 164789 2009-08-27	CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY v. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO AND PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO BRION, J.
The surge in the real estate business in the country brought with it an increasing number of cases between subdivision owners/developers and lot buyers on the issue of the extent of the HLURB's exclusive jurisdiction. In the cases that reached us, we have consistently ruled that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better place to live in.[15]
	GR No. 171763 2009-06-05	MARIA LUISA PARK ASSOCIATION v. SAMANTHA MARIE T. ALMENDRAS QUISUMBING, J.
The provisions of P.D. No. 957 were intended to encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB, to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and the enforcement of contractual rights with respect to said category of real estate may take recourse. The business of developing subdivisions and corporations being imbued with public interest and welfare, any question arising from the exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which has the technical know-how on the matter.[21] In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by the regular courts.[22]
	GR No. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
An examination of Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344,[16] which enumerates the regulatory functions of the HLURB,[17] readily shows that its quasi-judicial function is limited to hearing only the following specific 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. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
WHEREAS, reports of alarming magnitude also show cases of swindling and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and operators, such as failure to deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and encumbrances, and to pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to different innocent purchasers for value ."[18] The boom in the real estate business all over the country resulted in more litigation between subdivision owners/developers and lot buyers with the issue of the jurisdiction of the NHA or the HLURB over such controversies as against that of regular courts. In the cases that reached this Court, the ruling has consistently been that the NHA or the HLURB has jurisdiction over complaints arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better place to live in.[19]
	GR NOS. 175181-82 2007-09-14	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SLGT HOLDINGS GARCIA, J.
As we articulated in Arranza v. B.F. Homes, Inc.,[27] the fact that respondent B.F. Homes is under receivership does not preclude the continuance before the HLURB of the case for specific performance of a real estate developer's obligation under PD 957. For, "[E]"ven if respondent is under receivership, its obligations as a real estate developer under P.D. 957 are not suspended. Section 6 (C) of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended …, on 'suspension of all actions for claims against corporations' refers solely to monetary claims."[28] Says the Court further:xxx The appointment of a receiver does not dissolve the corporation, nor does it interfere with the exercise of corporate rights. In this case where there appears to be no restraints imposed upon respondent as it undergoes rehabilitation receivership, respondent … continues or should continue to perform its contractual and statutory responsibilities to petitioners as homeowners.