G.R. No. 96494 May 28, 1992
CASA FILIPINA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, MALACAÑANG, MANILA, AND JOSE VALENZUELA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

On May 2, 1984, private respondent Jose Valenzuela, Jr. entered into a Contract to Sell with petitioner Casa Filipina Development Corporation for the purchase of a subdivision lot. He made the full and final payment on October 7, 1985. Despite full payment, petitioner refused to execute the deed of absolute sale and deliver the corresponding transfer certificate of title. Valenzuela filed a complaint before the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB). Petitioner defended itself by claiming the action was premature due to Valenzuela’s failure to pay transfer expenses and by citing difficulties with its mortgagee bank, as its original mortgagee, Royal Savings Bank, was absorbed by Comsavings Bank, which demanded full payment of petitioner’s obligations before releasing individual titles. The OAALA ruled in favor of Valenzuela, ordering petitioner to execute the deed of sale and deliver the title, or alternatively, to refund the payments with 24% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint. The HLURB and the Office of the President affirmed this decision. Petitioner filed the present petition, arguing that the remedies of specific performance and rescission cannot be granted simultaneously, that there was no evidence of Valenzuela’s offer to pay transfer expenses, that the 24% interest rate was excessive, and that the six-month redemption period under Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 had not begun to run because the title had not been issued.

ISSUE

1. Whether the HLURB and the Office of the President erred in affirming the decision which granted both specific performance and rescission.
2. Whether the finding that private respondent was ready to pay transfer expenses was supported by evidence.
3. Whether the imposition of 24% interest per annum on the refund amount was proper.
4. Whether the six-month period for redemption of the mortgage under Section 25 of P.D. No. 957 begins to run only upon issuance of the title.

RULING

1. No. The OAALA decision ordered rescission only in the event specific performance was not feasible, which are alternative, not simultaneous, remedies. Furthermore, petitioner is estopped from raising this issue as it had itself prayed for a period to redeem the title or, alternatively, for a refund in its appeal memorandum before the HLURB.
2. No. The factual finding by the OAALA that the complainant was “ready, willing and able to pay for the expenses for the transfer of title” is accorded respect and finality.
3. Yes. The 24% interest per annum was mutually agreed upon by the parties in their Contract to Sell for installment payments. There is no reason why this same stipulated rate should not apply to petitioner, which violated its reciprocal obligation. The ruling in Solid Homes Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies, where the stipulated interest rate, not the legal rate, governs when expressly agreed upon in writing.
4. No. The argument that the six-month redemption period begins only upon title issuance is untenable. Otherwise, the owner or developer could concoct reasons to delay the issuance and prolong the delivery of a clear title. Counting the period from a belated issuance would allow the petitioner to benefit from its own violation of the law’s mandate to deliver the title upon full payment. Such an absurdity is not countenanced. The law aims to protect buyers from fraudulent practices, including failure to deliver titles free from liens.
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision and resolution of the Office of the President are AFFIRMED.