Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY AND ROSARIO R. SUNTAY v. EUGENIA D. GOCOLAY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164789 2009-08-27	CHRISTIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY v. SPS. AVELINO C. IGNACIO AND PRISCILLA T. IGNACIO BRION, J.
Pursuant to Roxas, we held in Pilar Development Corporation v. Villar[19] and Suntay v. Gocolay[20] that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over cases filed by subdivision or condominium owners or developers against subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers or owners. The rationale behind this can be found in the wordings of Sec. 1, PD No. 1344, which expressly qualifies that the cases cognizable by the HLURB are those instituted by subdivision or condomium buyers or owners against the project developer or owner. This is also in keeping with the policy of the law, which is to curb unscrupulous practices in the real estate trade and business.[21]
	GR No. 180394 2008-09-29	MARJORIE B. CADIMAS v. MARITES CARRION TINGA, J.
The statement in Suntay v. Gocolay[28] to the effect that P.D. No. 957 encompasses all questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums, which was cited by the Court of Appeals in the assailed decision, is a mere obiter dictum. As a matter of fact, the Court in Suntay nullified the orders issued by the HLURB over the action for the annulment of an auction sale, cancellation of notice of levy and damages on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1344 were not the applicable laws because the action was brought against a condominium buyer and not against the developer, seller, or broker contemplated under P.D. No. 1344. The action likewise involved the determination of ownership over the disputed condominium unit, which by its nature does not fall under the classes of disputes cognizable by the HLURB under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344.
	GR No. 173415 2008-03-28	Mariano Tanenglian Petitioner v. Silvestre Lorenzo CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down anytime.[48] In Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat,[49] we declared that a void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no rights can be obtained, which neither binds nor bonds anyone, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing therefrom are void. In the Petition at bar, since the Regional Adjudicator is evidently without jurisdiction to rule on respondents' complaint without the existence of a tenancy relationship between them and the petitioner, then the Decision he rendered is void.