REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

MALACAAN
MANILA

ABIGAIL ADVINCULA-CATES,
Complainant-Appellee,

OP CASE NO. 14-A-029

- versus -

(HLURB Appeal Case No. REM-A-121115-01726

HLURB Case No. REM-090110-14339)

NEST BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,
Respondent-Appellant.

x------------------------x

SUMMARY
A. UNDISPUTED FACTS:
Respondent-appellant is the developer of Bell
Mansion Hometel located at No. 62 Road 13, Pagasa, Quezon City.
Complainant-appellee purchased on installment
Units 1113 and 1114 to be combined into one (1)
whole unit for a total floor area of forty-nine (49
sqm) square meters.1
The resulting configuration for the combined unit
included, among others, two (2) bedrooms and one
(1) toilet and bath, the same configuration as the a
close relative of the complainant-appellee, Ms.
Nenita D. Carig (Auntie Nenita).2
1
2

Contract to Sell, Annex A of the complaint

Annexes D-Appeal and E-Appeal of the respondent-appellants Appeal-Memorandum
with the BOARD.

 The initial total consideration for the combined

units is sixty thousand nine hundred thirty-three
and 02/100 (US$ 60,933.02) US dollars payable as
follows:3
o ten (10%) percent downpayment in the amount
of US$ 6,093.31 payable in seven (7) monthly
installments of US$ 870.48 starting from
October 2006 to April 2007; and
o the balance of US$ 54,839.71 payable in
monthly amortizations of US$ 761.67 until
fully paid.
In 2008, complainant-appellee was informed that
the total floor area of the combined units increased
from 49 square meters to 51.6 square meters
causing an adjustment in the purchase price.4
Pursuant thereto, the complainant-appellee issued
four post-dated checks for the total amount of US$
1,932.00 to cover the adjustment.
In 2010, complainant-appellee raised concerns
regarding alleged changes in the floor plan and
complained about the denial of her request for a
lower amortization interest rate which her Auntie
Nenita was getting.5
Respondent-appellant replied that the standard
technical specifications of the unit, the rate of
interest, and the miscellaneous expenses were
consistent with their agreement.6
Complainant-appellee, through counsel, sent a
demand letter rescinding the Contract to Sell and
demanding reimbursement in the amount of thirty3
4
5
6

Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex

C of the Complaint
F of the Complaint
B-Appeal of the respondent-appellants Appeal-Memorandum with the BOARD.
H of the Complaint

three thousand five hundred sixty-five and 40/100

(US$ 33,565.40) US dollars.7
Respondent-appellant
denied
the
unilateral
rescission of the Contract to Sell as well as the
demand for reimbursement of payments made.8
Complainant-appellee filed the instant complaint
with the HLURB.
B. OPPOSING VIEWS:
Complainant-appellee insists that the original
agreement was for a combined unit with two (2)
bedrooms and two (2) toilet and bath.
Respondent-appellant argues that the configuration
of complainant-appellees combined unit was the
same as the latters Auntie Nenita and included two
(2) bedrooms and one (1) toilet and bath.
C. DECISIONS OF THE HLU ARBITER AND BOARD:
HLU Arbiter favored the complainant-appellee and
ruled that the combined units should have two (2)
bedrooms and two (2) toilet and bath. He declared
the Contract to Sell rescinded and ordered the
respondents-appellees to reimburse the total
amount of US$33,565.40 with 6% interest from the
date of filing of the complaint, which shall thereafter
earn 12% interest after finality thereof, until fully
paid, as well as to pay P50,000.00 attorneys fees,
P25,000.00 moral and P25,000.00 exemplary
damages.
The Board dismissed the appeal of the respondentsappellants ruling that the same was filed out of
time.
7
8

Annex I of the Complaint

Annex C-Appeal of the respondent-appellants Appeal-Memorandum with the BOARD.

D. THE INSTANT APPEAL:

Respondent-appellant filed the instant appeal on
______________________.
The complainant-appellee
Comment/Opposition.

did

not

file

any

E. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT IN

THE INSTANT APPEAL:
The Appeal before the HLURB Board was not filed
out of time.
o The respondent-appellant received a copy of
the Decision of the HLU Arbiter only on August
17, 2012 and filed its Appeal by registered mail
on September 3, 2012 considering that
September 1, 2012 is a Saturday.
o Section 3 Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that in case of filing by
registered mail, the date of mailing is
considered as the date of filing.
o It was erroneous for the Board to declare that
the Appeal was filed on September 12, 2012
which was the date of its receipt.
o Likewise, reliance by the Board on alleged
proof of receipt of respondent-appellees
counsel, i.e. alleged letter from letter-carrier
Jerry Domagco, is erroneous considering that
a certification must be issued by the
Postmaster himself for the same to merit the
presumption of regularity.9
o It was likewise erroneous for the Board to
disregard the Affidavit10 of Atty. Victor S. Leal,
the previous counsel for respondent-appellant,
9

Barrameda vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-27211, July 6, 1977

4

who swore under oath that he did not receive a

copy of the subject Decision of the HLU Arbiter
on the alleged date.
o Administrative bodies are not bound by the
technical niceties of law and procedure and the
rules obtaining in courts of law. In
administrative proceedings, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied
and administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial
sense.11
o It is well to remember at this point that rules
of procedure are but mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
and rigid application that would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice must always be
avoided. Applied to the instant case, this not
only assures that it would be resolved based
on real facts, but would also aid in the speedy
disposition of the case by utilizing the best
evidence possible to determine the rights and
obligations of the party- litigants.12
The Board effectively altered the terms and
conditions of the Agreement between the parties,
contrary to prevailing jurisprudence.
o The complainant-appellee insisted on the same
terms and conditions as her Auntie Nenita. As
such, the configuration of their respective
combined units should also be the same.
o A contract is the law between the parties, and
courts have no choice but to enforce such
contract so long as it is not contrary to law,
10

11
12

Affidavit of Atty. Victor S. Leal; Annex 2 of respondent-appellants

Comment/Opposition to the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution;
Pontejos vs. Desierto et al, G.R. No. 148600, July 7, 2009
Tiu et al vs. Phil Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 151932, August 19, 2009
5

morals, good customs or public policy.

Otherwise, courts would be interfering with
the freedom of contract of the parties.
Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the
parties or amend the latter's agreement, for
to do so would be to alter the real intention
of the contracting parties when the
contrary function of courts is to give force
and effect to the intention of the parties.13
The complainant-appellees claim that the combined
units should have 2 toilet and bath was a mere
afterthought.
o The records show that the complainantappellee filed the complaint after her request
for a lower amortization interest rate was
denied.
o The complainant-appellee rejected the offer of
the respondent-appellant to construct an
additional toilet and bath during the
mediation.
Rescission is not available in a Contract to Sell
except where the developer failed to complete the
project within the period stipulated.
o Emiliano Rillo vs. Court of Appeals et al;14
o Albert R. Padilla vs. Spouse Floresco Paredes
and Adelina Paredes et al;15
o G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp vs. World Class
Properties Inc.;16
13

14
15
16

Norton Resources and Development Corporation vs. All Asia Bank Corporation, G.R. No.
162523, November 25, 2009
Rillo vs. Court of Appeals et al, G.R. No. 125347, June 19, 1997
Padilla vs. Spouses Paredes et al, G.R. No. 124874, March 17, 2000
G.G. Sportswear Mfg. Corp vs. World Class Properties Inc., G.R. No. 182720, March 2,
2010

 Assuming that the complaiant-appellee is entitled to

reimbursement, it should only be 50% of payments
made in accordance with the Maceda Law.
Complainant-appellee should not be entitled to
moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.