G.R. No. 139067 November 23, 2004
SPS. MA. CARMEN L. JAVELLANA and VICTOR JAVELLANA, petitioners, vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Manila and BENITO LEGARDA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Benito Legarda filed a complaint for Accion Publiciana and sum of money against petitioners, spouses Javellana. The complaint alleged that the parties entered into a Contract to Sell over a specific lot, with petitioners defaulting on installment payments. Legarda rescinded the contract and, invoking the Maceda Law, offered to refund the cash surrender value upon petitioners’ vacation of the property. Petitioners moved to dismiss, contending the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. They argued the lot was a subdivision lot and, under P.D. No. 957, exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it for being filed six days late. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals should have relaxed procedural rules since the core issue involves the RTC’s jurisdiction, and reiterating that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint for Accion Publiciana and sum of money arising from a rescinded Contract to Sell.

RULING

Yes, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s orders and set aside the CA’s procedural dismissal, ruling on the substantive jurisdictional issue. The legal logic is that the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction under P.D. No. 957 extends only to cases where the seller is a subdivision owner, developer, broker, or salesman engaged in the real estate business, and the sale is part of a subdivision project as statutorily defined. The complaint and the attached Contract to Sell contained no allegations that the subject lot was part of a subdivision project partitioned primarily for residential purposes and offered to the public for sale. The contract did not describe the property as a subdivision lot, nor did it contain standard developer undertakings like providing infrastructure and common areas. The transaction was a simple sale of a specific lot between ordinary seller and buyer, not a sale in the course of a real estate trade or business. Therefore, the dispute falls outside the specialized jurisdiction of the HLURB and is properly cognizable by the regular courts. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction.