GR 165742; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165742; June 30, 2009
TRI-CORP LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INC., represented by SOLITA S. JIMENEZ-PAULINO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GREYSTONE CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Tri-Corp entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent Greystone for a condominium unit in the Casa Madeira project. Tri-Corp’s application for membership with the San Miguel Village Homeowner’s Association was denied because the condominium’s construction allegedly violated village restrictions annotated on the titles of the underlying lots. The Association filed a case against Greystone before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) seeking cancellation of the condominium certificates of title. Tri-Corp intervened in that HLURB case, seeking suspension of its payments.
Separately, Tri-Corp filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, sitting as a Land Registration Court, docketed as LRC Case No. M-4086. The petition sought the correction of an error/misrepresentation in the master deed, alleging that Greystone used varying descriptions of the project (e.g., “duplex residence,” “townhouse,” “condominium”) to different government agencies and associations to circumvent laws and regulations. Tri-Corp prayed for a temporary restraining order and injunction.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court, acting as a Land Registration Court, has jurisdiction over Tri-Corp’s petition for correction of error/misrepresentation in the master deed, or whether jurisdiction lies with the HLURB.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction. The petition, while framed as one for correction under land registration laws, essentially alleged that Greystone employed different project descriptions to mislead authorities and the buying public. These allegations pertain to “unsound real estate business practices” as defined under Presidential Decree No. 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree) and its amendatory laws. Jurisdiction over cases involving such practices is expressly vested by law in the HLURB. The Court emphasized that the HLURB possesses the requisite technical expertise to resolve the technical issues raised regarding project descriptions, permits, and compliance with real estate laws. Consequently, the RTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal. The petition for certiorari was therefore dismissed.