Office of the President

of the Philippines
Malacañang

XXX XXX XXX,

Complainant-Appellee,

-versus- OP Case No.XXX

(HLURB Case No. XXX)

XXX XXX XXX,

Respondent-Appellant,
x------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(TO THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM)

Complainant-Appellee, through the undersigned counsel, most

respectfully states the following:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

At the onset, it must be emphasized that the arguments raised

by herein Respondent-Appellant in their Appeal Memorandum
before this Honorable Office are essentially one in the same with
their previous Appeal Memorandum before the Honorable Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board- Board of Commissioners ( the
“HLURB-Board” for brevity).

The HLURB-Board’s decision dated April 22, 2014 modified the

Decision of the Regional Office as follows:

1. Declaring the subject contract to sell still in

force and subsisting;
2. Allowing Complainant to fully update her
account without interest and penalties within
sixty (60) days from the receipt of this
Decision, failing in which respondent shall
have the right to cancel the contract by paying
the Complainant the amount of Php378,
995.48 representing the cash surrender value
of her payments, with interest of 6% per
annum from the filing of the complaint until
finality of the decision and 12% from finality
until full payment;
 3. Ordering respondent to pay the complainant
nominal damages in the amount of
Php50,000.00 exemplary damages in the
amount of Php50,000.00 and attorney’s fees
in the amount of Php20.000.00, and litigation
expenses equivalent to the amount of filing
fees.

Contrary to the proposition of the Respondent-Appellant, the

above quoted provision is in accordance with the applicable law
and is based on the facts and documents submitted by both
parties.

The Maceda Law is very clear that in case the purchaser is

able to pay at least worth 24-month installment payment for the
unit she intends to buy, such purchaser is entitled to
corresponding cash surrender value should she default in
payment of succeeding installments and the contract was
rescinded. Based on the records and evidence submitted, it is
very clear that Complainant-Appellee paid more than twenty-
four months installment payment worth when the contract to
sell was rescinded arbitrarily by the respondent.

The honorable HLURB-Board’s decision should be affirmed

en toto by this Honorable Office as the same is not merely
based on allegations surmises and conjectures but on facts,
evidence submitted and law.

In their Appeal Memorandum, in the first paragraph thereof,

herein Respondent-Appellant stated that “ The HLURB, however
was not formed in order to destroy legitimate developers by
punishing these developers for operating within the parameters
set by law” Adding, “it must be stressed that the legitimate
developers are likewise entitled to the protection of the
Government from buyers who are only out to breach their
contractual obligation”1

Such argument of herein Respondent-Appellant is not only

false, but is also trying to mislead this Honorable Office that the
subject decision of the HLURB-Board was merely made in order
to accommodate herein Complainant-Appellee as the David, in
this David versus Goliath litigation. It is very clear and even if
only made with compendious review of the decision and the
arguments of the parties, that the same was not decided to favor
the weak or the poor and put in disadvantage the wealthy but
is in accordance with what the law prescribes and based on the
facts and documents submitted.

II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

1
Page 1, Appeal Memorandum.
 To reiterate, the following are the undisputed facts as
correctly found by Arbiter Atty. Foronda and the HLURB-Board:

1. Herein Respondent – Appellant as a real estate developer with

numerous projects one of which is the Cambridge Village
Project located in XXX XXX XXX.

2. Sometime on July 2005, Complainant – Appellee and the

Respondent – Appellant agreed that the former would
purchase one (1) unit from the latter’s Cambridge Village
condominium project, the specific unit purchased is
particularly described as follows:

Phase/Cluster : 3
Floor/Unit No. : 1-C
Area : 40 000 sq. m.
Parking Slots : None

For a third consideration of One Million One Hundred and Thirty

Thousand Pesos (PhP 1,130,000.00) payable as follows:
a. Reservation - 10,000
b. Balance - 1,120,000 shall be paid in thirty
six (36) equal monthly
installments of PhP31,111.11 to
be covered by post dated checks.

3. In compliance with the agreement between the Respondent–

Appellant and the Complainant–Appellee, the latter paid the
reservation fee (PhP 10, 000) and the delivered a total of
thirty-six (36) post dated checks each containing the same
amount of Php 31,111.00.

4. The amortization schedule was religiously followed by the

Complainant–Appellee until December 2005 where she
experienced financial difficulties which thus resulted to non-
payment of monthly amortizations.

5. Complainant–Appellee received a letter dated February 10,

2016 from XXX XXX XXX, Documentation
Assistant of the Respondent–Appellant informing her that the
Contract to Buy AND Sell for the unit she purchased was
then ready for signature.

6. Subsequently, Complainant-Appellee received another letter

from the Respondent-Appellant, through its Credit and
Collection Assistant Dick Paolo D. Inandan, dated February
23, 2006, notifying her about the unpaid monthly
amortization for her unit for the period of 23 December 2005
to 28 February 2006 including the accrued penalties.
Complainant-appellee was given until March 4, 2006 to settle
the said obligation.

7. Eventually, the same XXX XXX XXX sent a

demand letter dated March 13, 2006 to the complainant-
appellee urging the latter to pay the outstanding obligation
 as stated in his February 23, 2006 letter on or before March
22, 2006.

8. Unable to pay her monthly amortizations due to financial

constraint, the legal counsel of respondent-appellant, XXX
XXX XXX, sent another demand letter dated March
29, 2006 demanding her to pay her monthly amortizations
for December 2005 to February 2006.

9. A final notice of Cancellation dated April 18, 2006 was sent

to complainant-appellee.

10. To the surprise of the complainant-appellee, she received

another letter from respondent-appellant dated May 10, 2006
informing her that the Contract to Buy and Sell for her unit
was ready for signature. This gave hope to the complainant
appellee because it is a clear indication that the cancellation
did not push through.

11. A few days later, through a letter dated May 24, 2006,
respondent-appellant gave complainant-appellee an option to
pay her overdue account within 12 months on top of her
monthly amortization starting May 30, 2006 up to April 30,
2007 in the amount of XXX XXX XXX. Again this
communication gave a clear hope for the complainant-
appellee that the April 18, 2006 notice of cancellation was
disregarded.

12. Another letter was sent to complainant-appellee notifying

her about the turn-over of the unit she purchased through a
letter dated September 1, 2006.

13. Sometime in August 2007, Complainant-Appellee received

an Acceptance Receipt from respondent-appellant dated
August 9, 2007 showing therein that she was accepting the
unit she purchased.

14. On 23 January 2013 the HLURB-Expanded National

Capital Region Field Office (Regional Office) rendered its
decision, favoring herein Complainant-Appellee entitling the
latter to the payment of cash surrender value and for herein
Respondent-Appellant to pay damages and attorney’s fees.

15. While on appeal the HLURB-Board in assenting to the

finding of the Regional Office stated:

The records show that the reservation fee, the official

receipts as well as the amount deposited by the
Complainant under the name and for the account of the
Respondent have a combined total of Php757,910.97.
At a monthly amortization of Php31,111.00, said
amount is more than the required twenty-four (24)
monthly installments under Republic Act. No. 6552.
 Complainant being entitled to a cash surrender value,
respondent is mandated to observe the basic
substantive and procedural requirement under the
law, xxx
xxx xxx

III. ISSUED RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT

According to their Appeal Memorandum, herein Respondent-

Appellant posits that the Honorable HLURB-Board committed
error in holding the Complainant-Appellee entitled to a 50
refund, damages and attorney’s fees.

We beg to disagree. The facts of the case, evidence on record,

and the applicable law point otherwise.

IV. COUNTER DISCUSSION.

Respondent-Appellant
failed to observe the
twin requirments
under the Maceda Law

16. As pointed out by the Honorable HLURB-Board in their

decision, that for a valid cancellation to sell to take place, there
are twin requirements to be complied with, i.e., sending of
notarized notice of cancellation and refund of cash surrender
value. In this connection, we deem it necessary to point out
that under the Maceda Law, the actual cancellation of a
contract to sell takes place after 30 days from receipt by the
buyer of the notarized notice of cancellation and payment of
the cash surrender value to the buyer. Until and unless the
seller complies with these twin mandatory requirements, the
contract to sell between the parties remains valid and
subsisting2.

17. Section 3 of the Maceda Law provides:

Section 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the

sale or financing of real estate on installment payments,
including residential condominium apartments but
excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and
sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-
eight hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act
Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine, where the
buyer has paid at least two years of installments, the
buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he
defaults in the payment of succeeding installments:

(a) To pay, without additional interest, the unpaid

installments due within the total grace period earned by
him which is hereby fixed at the rate of one month grace
period for every one year of installment payments made:
Provided, That this right shall be exercised by the buyer
2
Page 3, HLURB-Board of Commissioners Decision.
 only once in every five years of the life of the contract
and its extensions, if any.

(b) If the contract is canceled, the seller shall refund to

the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on
the property equivalent to fifty per cent of the total
payments made, and, after five years of installments,
an additional five per cent every year but not to exceed
ninety per cent of the total payments made: Provided,
That the actual cancellation of the contract shall take
place after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the
notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the
contract by a notarial act and upon full payment of the
cash surrender value to the buyer.

Down payments, deposits or options on the contract

shall be included in the computation of the total number
of installment payments made.

18. It is very clear from the above-quoted provision that in

order to have a valid cancellation of the contract to sell, there
are twin requirements to be complied with, i.e., sending of
the notarized notice of cancellations and refund of cash
surrender value. The buyer would be entitled to such
privilege if he was able to pay at least two (2) years of
installment. As discussed above and based on facts as
correctly found by the Regional Office and the HLURB-Board
the amount deposited by the Complainant under the name
and for the account of the Respondent have a combined total
of Php757,910.97. At a monthly amortization of
Php31,111.00, said amount is more than the required
twenty-four (24) monthly installments under the law.

19. Despite payment of the required amount under the law,

Complainant-Appellee never received any notice of
cancellation from Respondent-Appellant to at least warn her
that her contract to buy and sell would be cancelled after
paying almost whole of the agreed purchase price.

Findings of fact by
administrative
agencies such as the
HLURB are generally
accorded great
respect, if not finality
by the court

20. In their Appeal Memorandum, herein Respondent-

Appellant is claiming that the finding of the HLURB-Board
that Complainant-Appellee’s total payments amounted to
Php XXX XXX XXX is incorrect. In support of
their argument, they pointed out to the alleged admission of
herein Complainant-Appellee that she was only able to pay
XXX XXX XXX
 21. However, at this point it must be emphasized that the
Regional Office and the HLURB-Board arrived with the above
quoted figure not by considering the allegations of only one
party, but in arriving so, they considered the evidence of the
parties, to wit:

The records show that the reservation fee, the official

receipts as well as the amount deposited by the
Complainant under the name and for the account of the
Respondent have a combined total of Php757,910.97. At
a monthly amortization of Php31,111.00, said amount
is more than the required twenty-four (24) monthly
installments under Republic Act. No. 65523

22. Hence, the finding of the Regional Office and the HLURB
Board must be given respect as far as the amount paid by
herein Complainant-Appellee is concerned.

The award of cash

surrender value is
proper and just
23. To reiterate, it is only just and equitable that respondent-
appellant be ordered to refund to the complainant the cash
surrender value with 6% interest per annum computed from
the time this case is filed on XXX XXX XXX until
fully paid.
24. In Active Realty and Development Corporation vs. Daroya,
that ruled, to wit:
Thus, for failure to cancel the contract in accordance
with the procedure provided by law, we hold that the
contract to sell between the parties remains valid and
subsisting. Following Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 6552,
respondent has the right to offer to pay for the balance
of the purchase price, without interest, which she did in
this case. Ordinarily, petitioner would have had no other
recourse but to accept payment. However, respondent can no
longer exercise this right as the subject lot was already sold
by the petitioner to another buyer which lot, as admitted by
the petitioner, was valued at P1,700.00 per square meter. As
respondent lost her chance to pay for the balance of
the P875,000.00 lot, it is only just and equitable that the
petitioner be ordered to refund to respondent the actual value
of the lot resold, i.e., P875,000.00, with 12% interest per
annum computed from August 26, 1991 until fully paid or to
deliver a substitute lot at the option of the respondent.

25. Clearly from the foregoing, the payment of cash surrender

value by the respondent-appellant is proper. As a matter of
3
Ibid
 fact, it should be full refund as prayed for by the complainant
because the contract to sell was erroneously, illegally and
arbitrarily rescinded by respondent-appellant.
Complainant-Appellee is
entitled to Attorney’s
Fees, Litigation
Expenses and Damages

26. As correctly decided by the HLURB-Board, due to

Respondent-Appellant’s capricious cancellation of the
contract and forfeiture of the payments made by the
Complainant-Appellee the latter is entitled to nominal
damages pursuant to Article 2221 and 2222 of the Civil Code.
Adding that the precipitate and wrongful cancellation of the
contract was serious violation of the law and the Complainant-
Appellee’s rights as a buyer, manifesting wanton disregard
thereof by the respondent4.

27. Further, in assenting to the HLURB-Board decision,

exemplary damages should also be awarded as stated in the
latter, to serve as an example and to deter other real estate
companies who might be similarly minded from adopting the
same practice.

28. Finally, in increasing the award of Attorney’s Fees, the

HLURB Board is also correct, due to the wrongful acts of the
respondent, complainant was constrained to litigate and
avail of the services of counsel in order to vindicate her rights.

V. FINAL STATEMENTS

As a final statement, herein Complainant-Appellee would like to

note for the appreciation of the Honorable Office that the matter
at hand was originally initiated through a complaint filed on 9
February 2010. And it has been eight (8) long years since that day,
when the latter was unjustly deprived of her hard earned money
that supposedly for the establishment of a new home for her and
her family. Hence she is asking the Honorable Office to once and
for all give justice to where it is due.

VI. PRAYER

4
Page 4, Ibid.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
to this Honorable Office that the instant appeal be DENIED and the
XXX XXX XXX decision be AFFIRMED EN TOTO.

Complainant-Appellee further prays for such other reliefs and

remedies just and equitable in the premises.

XXX XXX XXX, XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________