G.R. No. 231290 , August 27, 2020
Perfecto Velasquez, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Lisondra Land Incorporated, represented by Edwin L. Lisondra, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1998, Perfecto Velasquez, Jr. and Lisondra Land Incorporated entered into a joint venture agreement to develop a parcel of land into a memorial park. Velasquez filed a complaint for breach of contract against Lisondra Land before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that Lisondra Land failed to secure the required HLURB permit, delayed the project, failed to provide insurance, pay its share of taxes, and collected kickbacks. Lisondra Land moved to dismiss, claiming the HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged unsound real estate business practices. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 72463, granted Lisondra Land’s petition for certiorari, ordered the dismissal of the RTC case, and held that the HLURB had jurisdiction. This CA decision became final.
Subsequently, Velasquez filed a complaint before the HLURB, alleging unsound real estate business practices. The HLURB Arbiter ruled in favor of Velasquez, rescinded the joint venture, transferred project management to him, and ordered Lisondra Land to pay fines and damages. The HLURB Board of Commissioners initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling it was an intra-corporate dispute for the RTC, but later reversed itself and affirmed the Arbiter’s decision with modifications. The Office of the President affirmed the HLURB Board’s resolution. Lisondra Land then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 131359), again contesting the HLURB’s jurisdiction. The CA granted the petition, set aside the OP’s decision, and dismissed Velasquez’s complaint, holding that the HLURB’s jurisdiction is limited to cases filed by buyers or owners of subdivision lots or condominium units.

ISSUE

Whether the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Perfecto Velasquez, Jr., a joint venture partner, against Lisondra Land Incorporated for alleged unsound real estate business practices related to a memorial park development project.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The HLURB did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The HLURB’s jurisdiction, as defined by Presidential Decree No. 1344, is limited to cases involving unsound real estate business practices, claims for refund, and specific performance of obligations filed by buyers or owners of subdivision lots or condominium units against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman. The controversy between Velasquez and Lisondra Land arose from a joint venture agreement between business partners, not from a buyer-seller relationship. Velasquez is not a buyer or owner of a subdivision lot or condominium unit as contemplated by the law. Therefore, the complaint fell outside the HLURB’s specialized jurisdiction and should have been filed with the regular courts. The principle of estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction where none exists by law. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.