Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LACSON HERMANAS v. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
In Javellana v. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 30, Manila,[22] the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint for accion publiciana and sum of money on the ground that the complaint did not allege that the subject lot was part of a subdivision project but that the sale was an ordinary sale on an installment basis. Even the mere assertion that the defendant is a subdivision developer or that the subject lot is a subdivision lot does not automatically vest jurisdiction on the HLURB. On its face, the complaint must sufficiently describe the lot as a subdivision lot and sold by the defendant in his capacity as a subdivision developer to fall within the purview of P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1344 and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.[23]
	GR NO. 154877 2007-03-27	JIN-JIN DELOS SANTOS v. SPS. REYNATO D. SARMIENTO AND LENI C. SARMIENTO AND IA-JAN SARMIENTO REALTY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In quite a number of cases, we declared the HLURB without jurisdiction where the complaint filed did not allege that the property involved is a subdivision or condominium project or a subdivision lot or condominium unit.[47] In fact, in Javellana v. Presiding Judge,[48] we were not satisfied with a mere reference in the contract to sell to the property as a "regular subdivision project." We observed:A reading of the complaint does not show that the subject lot was a subdivision lot which would fall under the jurisdiction of the HLURB. The complaint clearly described the subject lot as Lot No. 44, Plan 15 with an area of 139.4 sq. meters situated in the District of Sampaloc covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 131305 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila. We note that such description was used when referring to the subject lot. What appears from the complaint was the fact that the subject lot was sold to petitioners in an ordinary sale of a lot on installment basis; that petitioners allegedly defaulted in the payment of their monthly installments for which reason respondent seeks to recover possession thereof. Thus, the trial court has jurisdiction over the case.