G.R. Nos. 102193-97 May 10, 1994
MS. EMILY YU FAJARDO, SPOUSES SALVADOR and ENGRACIA GIANAN, RENE and BEVERLY RODELAS, SPOUSES JULIAN and TERESITA CUIZON, MS. TERESITA RIVERA and RICARDO VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. HON. ODILON I. BAUTISTA, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Calamba, Laguna, SPOUSES ISABELO and PURITA JAREÑO, RUBEN HABACON, and CESAR S. REYES, in his capacity as the Register of Deeds, Calamba, Laguna, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Isabelo and Purita Jareño (JAREÑOS) are the owners and developers of the Calamba Central Compound subdivision. On various dates, they entered into separate Contracts to Sell with the petitioners for the sale of specific subdivision lots. Separately, petitioner Emily Yu Fajardo entered into a Contract to Sell with Fernando Realty and Development Corporation for a lot in the same subdivision. On October 18, 1986, the JAREÑOS sold the same lots subject of the contracts to private respondent Ruben Habacon (HABACON) under “Kasulatan ng Bilihan.” On February 18, 1991, HABACON caused the cancellation of the original certificates of title and the issuance of new ones in his name. Upon learning of this, the petitioners filed separate complaints with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba for annulment of the sales to HABACON and the new titles, reinstatement of the cancelled titles, accounting, and damages. They prayed for the declaration of the “Kasulatan ng Bilihan” as an equitable mortgage, annulment of HABACON’s titles, and specific performance of the Contracts to Sell. HABACON filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court, through respondent Judge Odilon I. Bautista, issued an order directing the petitioners to show cause why the complaints should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing P.D. No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree), as amended by P.D. No. 1344, and the doctrine in Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal. The petitioners maintained that the RTC had jurisdiction because the title had passed to a third person (HABACON), the action was for annulment of a third party’s title, HABACON was not a developer, and Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested jurisdiction in the RTC over actions involving title to real property. The trial court dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction in its Order of September 4, 1991, holding that P.D. No. 1344 gave the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) inclusive jurisdiction over cases of “unsound real estate business practices.” The motion for reconsideration was denied on September 20, 1991. The petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaints for lack of jurisdiction, holding that jurisdiction pertained to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) under P.D. No. 957, as amended by P.D. No. 1344.

RULING

No, the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Initially, the Court noted that the petition for certiorari was improper as it was a substitute for a lost appeal, as the petitioners received the dismissal order on October 4, 1991, but filed the petition on October 24, 1991, beyond the 15-day appeal period, without explaining the lapse. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly held it had no jurisdiction. The complaints involved unsound real estate business practices by the subdivision owners/developers (the JAREÑOS) who entered into Contracts to Sell with the petitioners and subsequently sold the same lots to HABACON. By virtue of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344 and the ruling in Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Payawal, the National Housing Authority (NHA), whose jurisdiction was later transferred to the HLRB, had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The complaints also involved specific performance of the contractual and statutory obligations of the owners/developers, over which the HLRB had jurisdiction. The claims for annulment of the sales to HABACON and the titles issued to him and for damages were merely incidental to the main cause of action. Therefore, jurisdiction was vested in the HLRB, not the RTC.