GR 128516; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128516 ; November 28, 2001
DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTA PELEAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dulos Realty entered into a Contract to Sell a house and lot with respondent Vicenta Peleas. Peleas paid the down payment and occupied the premises but subsequently defaulted on her monthly amortizations. Dulos Realty made demands for payment and to vacate. Before Dulos could file a civil case, Peleas filed a complaint with the HLURB, alleging Dulos’s failure to develop the subdivision according to its approved plan, a violation of P.D. No. 957. Subsequently, Dulos filed a complaint for rescission of contract and recovery of possession with the RTC of Makati. The RTC initially dismissed Dulos’s complaint, finding both parties in pari delicto for breach of contract—Peleas for non-payment and Dulos for incomplete development.
The RTC later amended its decision, rescinding the contract in favor of Dulos. It noted that the HLURB had already dismissed Peleas’s complaint for lack of evidence of incomplete development. The court also found that Peleas had voluntarily relinquished possession and that her non-payment gave Dulos the right to rescind under the contract terms. The Court of Appeals reversed the amended decision and reinstated the original dismissal, holding that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case from the outset.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the action for rescission of the contract to sell involving a subdivision lot.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Presidential Decree No. 957, the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree, vests the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) with exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the sale of subdivision lots. This includes claims filed by buyers against developers and, conversely, actions filed by sellers or developers against buyers, such as for rescission or specific performance, arising from their contractual relations.
The Court clarified that the jurisdiction conferred upon the HLURB is exclusive and original. It is not divested by a prior finding in an administrative case before it. Since the cause of action—rescission of a contract to sell a subdivision lot—is intrinsically intertwined with the regulatory authority of the HLURB under P.D. No. 957, the RTC should have dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The proper recourse for Dulos Realty was to pursue its claim before the HLURB. Consequently, all proceedings in the RTC, including its amended decision, were declared null and void.